[111attendees] Hybrid meetings (was: Re: test)

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Mon, 26 July 2021 07:38 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
X-Original-To: 111attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 111attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D59A03A1F2B for <111attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 00:38:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=eggert.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ftb9WfRB0CJt for <111attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 00:38:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B0CC3A1F05 for <111attendees@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 00:38:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0CCCA60035D; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 10:38:10 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1627285091; bh=qbvQI59NBwd/SD/kVixzCT8zvdyh6/kM+bk5HohMSKU=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=YwiQDYbsM0pE71fPsBCKo8k34PE7yvyq6TO1k3mfDjAQ7ZR6zyB/QFFvH7GoVrnZ7 2OhoAxDeDKmkJiv1mt+kpxMdutJ2pOjYrEHd3UWaFD4oLqmZmYWf9RPUAT0fLXijJO BcCTMTHdnO8T4QdqcF0b+55y2dr6PSOtBOtonGNQ=
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Message-Id: <4514D660-C8AE-477F-BE10-14F03022EE71@eggert.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0FC3F3E2-3789-4B4D-BFF2-EBF31D96A141"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.\))
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 10:38:10 +0300
In-Reply-To: <08ED222C861609ACCF4FBE9F@PSB>
Cc: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, 111attendees@ietf.org, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>, Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola=40open-xchange.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
References: <c211bfe6-0ffb-b4d8-a3b8-840ab9ee0368@gmail.com> <af8652ed-179a-78d5-eb47-02302ba5e5c2@labs.htt-consult.com> <F7AA1B7F-23E8-48FB-B89B-AB2DAF1F1F8A@gmail.com> <CAAm_rSJcKNJchYt2_CEwBFQapQ3bDfbPXrJQkHQnsKW2i193Dw@mail.gmail.com> <ecad2565-6447-2065-53c6-f46d55666888@nthpermutation.com> <m2wnphq4ko.wl-randy@psg.com> <758515384.164289.1627031655741@appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com> <0043DCA8-C794-4146-AC2A-F1600ACA2D98@tzi.org> <20210723132655.GI57276@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <EC19AD3B-6392-4BC5-8A54-A28C563B7ABA@eggert.org> <08ED222C861609ACCF4FBE9F@PSB>
X-MailScanner-ID: 0CCCA60035D.A58AB
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/111attendees/lfzUBmxldWa7b6t71V9TIkzsouw>
Subject: [111attendees] Hybrid meetings (was: Re: test)
X-BeenThere: 111attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for IETF 111 attendees <111attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/111attendees>, <mailto:111attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/111attendees/>
List-Post: <mailto:111attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:111attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/111attendees>, <mailto:111attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 07:38:32 -0000


On 2021-7-23, at 20:30, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
> we should be putting
> effort into figuring out how to do hybrid meetings well,
> starting with figuring out what "hybrid" means for us.

effort has been put into this for some months now, via a small secretariat-led team made up of some secretariat and LLC staff, NOC members and some occasional IESG involvement.

As you can imagine, the added complexities of a hybrid meeting are substantial. They remain so even if we disregard the required COVID measures for a moment, because of usefully supporting a (much) larger remotely participating community from a smaller in-person setup. Uncertainty about necessary COVID-related measures imposed by authorities at the place of the in-person meeting make matters significantly more difficult, not to mention the in-person community maybe desiring measures beyond what is required by the authorities.

> If the first case applies, spending time in SHMOO and/or in
> consultations by the LLC fine-tuning criteria for going back to
> in-person meetings or whether the "next" meeting will be in
> person, is a waste of time and resource.

The uncertainties related to COVID require us to evaluate a wide range of options. The situation unfortunately remains very fluid, and so efforts that appeared relevant only a few weeks ago may seem like a waste of time and resources now - but at the same time, efforts that seemed irrelevant then are looking much more relevant now.

For example, several weeks ago, trend lines looked like a November meeting with a substantial in-person presence in Madrid might be viable, hence we've spent time and effort in this direction. But we're also spending time and effort on a more hybrid meeting (with a much larger remote participant set), and of course on a fully-online option (which is where SHMOO comes in); and it increasingly looks like we'll need to rely on the latter planning now.

> Either way, it seems to me that, as IETF Chair and General Area
> AD, it seems to me, if the SHMOO charter and work are no longer
> a good match for the needs of the IETF, you have both the
> authority and responsibility to make that determination and to
> either shut things down or initiate a conversation about
> adjusting the charter so that things get onto a more useful
> track.  Or you could propose that people start working on a
> charter for a SHMHybrid WG that would compete with SHMOO for
> interested people, time, and resources (it is probably clear
> that I don't think much of that idea, but it is logically
> possible).

The main reason I brought up the SHMOO charter at all was to explain why the current SHMOO documents are not covering hybrid meetings, which some were wondering about. I didn't intend to imply that the community should not discuss hybrid meetings, and I apologize if I came across like that.

I'll also note that SHMOO has WG chairs, which are in charge of managing the group and can initiate steps to recharter. But I don't think a rechartered SHMOO or new WG on hybrid meetings is what should happen first (see below).

> It seems to me however that, unless you have a plan about how
> individual I-Ds --ones that the experience of the last 18 months
> suggests would be very controversial-- would reach consensus
> without a WG structure and be processed, is sort of missing the
> point.

Before talking about how an I-D in this space may or may not reach consensus, and whether a rechartered SHMOO or new WG would or wouldn't help here, I think we all would actually like to see such I-Ds posted - namely, ones that outline what a hybrid meeting structure and experience should look like - in times of COVID and in a brighter future without.