Re: [113attendees] hybrid meetings: the worst of both worlds

[Leif Johansson <[e-mail]>]

On 2022-03-25 15:17, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> Hi Leif,
> 
> Thanks for the comprehensive review.  I had some good and bad experiences both, but in general think it worked "better than I was expecting it to".
> 
> One question, in order to figure out what a concrete suggestion I could take away from your notes:
> 
> 
>     Maybe the IETF needs to rehink the purpouse of onsite meetings.
> 
> 
> So in situations where most of the attendees can't attend in person due to global issues out of our control, are you suggesting we don't hold hybrid meetings?  What do you think would be a good ratio 
> of in-person to remote attendance that should be the barrier for deciding whether or not to hold an on-site meeting?  [we've had remote participation for a long time of course, but the ratio was far 
> lower]
> 
> [note: I have no decision making ability in this area -- I'm just curious]
> -- 
> Wes Hardaker
> USC/ISI

I'm suggesting that there might come a time (soon probably) where there are no obstacles to travel
but the technology is "good enough" for remote *execpt* for all the reasons the IETF is more than
a set of WGs...

At that point we should either give up on f2f entirely (and I think give up on the IETF as something
more than the I-Ds it produces) *OR* figure out another reason for people to want to travel.

	Cheers Leif