Re: [111attendees] test

[Robert Moskowitz <[e-mail]>]

And is the IETF schedule time shift a pain.

I tell my family, I am 'working' from 3pm - 9pm next week.  Do not 
disturb; I will squeeze dinner in there somehow.

Oh, but all the other groups are still having their meetings 9am - 5pm, 
and I have to attend them.  So a 12 hour day.  We do such things away in 
hotels at the conferences, but at home, the families don't get it.

2 advantages of F2F:  Face-to-face.  Dedicated attention to work.

With some time to 'play' in the lobby and elsewhere!

On 7/23/21 11:30 AM, David Brown wrote:
> Even corporately, for someone like myself, where my IETF participation 
> is just a small part of my job. It isn't too difficult to justify the 
> small charge for online participation. Once travel is factored in, the 
> in-person participation becomes much more difficult to justify. This 
> is the main reason that I've only been able to participate, so far, 
> online. I've appreciated how much better that works for me, with these 
> ones where everyone is on line.
>
> Online is challenging when there is a drastic timezone difference. 
> With on-site travel, it is easier to adapt, since everything around 
> you is in the new timezone. It doesn't work so well with remote 
> participation.
>
> David
>
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 9:08 AM Marie-Jose Montpetit 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Another aspect that needs some thoughts is cost.
>
>     In person participation even if you live in an Airbnb, a 2* hotel
>     or with friends and not at the 5* IETF hotels (even at reduced
>     rates) is a major monetary investment. If we want go get more
>     people involved this has to be in the equation. I am IRTF of
>     course but to get more academic participation the economics are
>     part of it.
>
>     But there is more: participants without corporate accounts (see
>     costs above), with family or teaching obligations or with other
>     issues have always participated remotely. So we can just extend it?
>
>     And while I really want to start seeing you guys again we need to
>     be realistic.
>
>     mjm
>
>     Marie-Jose Montpetit, Ing. Ph.D.
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>
>
>
>>     On Jul 23, 2021, at 10:53 AM, Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]
>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi Ted,
>>
>>     You approach this from the angle we have been using for a decade
>>     now: remote participation as a backpack on a local meeting.  As
>>     you say, that doesn’t work too well.
>>
>>     Covid-19 gives us a unique chance to actually have the majority
>>     of the IETF participants (and not just the weird ones :-) be online.
>>
>>     Re failures: I would prefer not to have them, instead of worrying
>>     how the characteristics of the meeting will change when we do
>>     have them.  (I remember the plenary when the power in the hotel
>>     failed…  IIRC, we just stopped the meeting for half an hour; but
>>     I’m sure there were productive discussions between the people in
>>     the room during this time, and that is fine.)
>>
>>>     Hybrid meetings failed in the past because there was no
>>>     collective discipline to operate in this way.
>>
>>     (The backpack thing.  Remote people are weird, and we’ll make
>>     “best effort” (i.e., not much at all) to accommodate them.  That,
>>     again, is changing.)
>>
>>     All that said, I don’t mind *some* advantages for people who
>>     actually travel; but I’m sure those advantages will be on the
>>     hallways and not in the meetings.
>>
>>     Grüße, Carsten
>>
>>     -- 
>>     111attendees mailing list
>>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/111attendees
>>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/111attendees>
>
>     -- 
>     111attendees mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/111attendees
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/111attendees>
>
>