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

Hi all,

We have to face the new reality we are living and are going to live 
because of more pandemics (we are still in one), climate
change and due to more conflicts.

I think hybrid meetings have to remain, and try to find better ways to 
resolve the issues mentioned to keep going with the discussions and 
interactions.

Only face to face meetings, could be part of past memories.

BEST,
SALUDOS,
_______
Azael

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022, Robert Moskowitz wrote:

> Like how we set about resolving the different positions espoused in rfcs 1597 and 1627...
> 
> Ah, life, and the IETF, seemed so simple back then...
> 
> On 3/25/22 14:03, Mike Bishop wrote:
>       Indeed. The number of passionate disagreements that can be solved by "The four people who care are going to
>       go have lunch, then present a consensus position at tomorrow's session" cannot be understated. In virtual
>       land, the arguments stretch on for weeks or months.
> 
> Sent from Nine
> 
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> From: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2022 1:59 PM
> To: Leif Johansson
> Cc: 113attendees@ietf.org; Wes Hardaker
> Subject: Re: [113attendees] hybrid meetings: the worst of both worlds
> 
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 3:36 PM Leif Johansson <leifj@sunet.se> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> As my experience this week was completely different, I - rather
> selfishly, indeed - hope that your proposal wouldn't be implemented
> any time soon.
> In the last 5 days I managed to make more progress than in the last 2
> years and I can't wait for Philadelphia already.
> IMHO IETF f2f meetings are a great example of holism, when the whole
> is greater than the sum of its parts.
> It's not about presenting a draft during a WG session or having a
> meeting/drink with colleagues. It's also about having the latter right
> after the former - while energy and enthusiasm are still high. The
> sessions and presentations give us food for thoughts and discussions
> between sessions (so IMHO we shall have much longer breaks).
> 
> For me there is another benefit of f2f meetings, even if not everyone
> is here. There are WGs which I'm actively participating in (well, at
> least I try..) - during the virtual meetings I was joining those
> sessions even if it was 2am my time. But there are many other sessions
> which I found very educational, and I did learn a lot this week by
> attending them. It's a completely different story for virtual IETFs
> though -  I just can't afford attending everything I'm curious about..
> 
> To sum it up: I wish there were more people, but still this IETF is
> the best one for me since 2020.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry
> 
> --
> 113attendees mailing list
> 113attendees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/113attendees
> 
> 
> --
> Robert Moskowitz
> Owner
> HTT Consulting
> C:      248-219-2059
> F:      248-968-2824
> E:      rgm@labs.htt-consult.com
> 
> There's no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn't matter who gets the credit
> 
>