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

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

I also think that the current hybrid format is very good and will likely
continue for a long time to come.

Onsite attendance is good if you can and probably you get the maximum out
of your attendance. Remote is also good even though ideal.
I was remote and because of the time difference and the scheduling of
sessions over which I have no control I had to miss several sessions I
hoped to attend
(e.g. I think all BOFs were scheduled 4-6am my time). But I can check the
minutes and read the documents, etc. to catch up.

The attendance was low expectedly, actually I thought it would be even
lower so maybe that's why Leif couldn't get what he expected.

My suggestion is to continue like this, what's wrong with it?

Behcet

On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 10:04 AM Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Leif,
>
> I had a very positive experience with the OAuth WG meetings.
>
> We had two official meetings and two side meetings.
> With the official meetings, most of the attendees were local, but we had
> good participation from remote attendees too.
> The side meeting allowed us to discuss other topics that resulted in
> making progress that was later presented during the second official
> meeting, Another topic was discussed and we have a plan on how to proceed
> from here.
> One random hallway chat with someone that noticed that I chair the OAuth
> WG and provided me with verbal feedback on his experience using OAuth. We
> discussed that briefly and I asked him if he is willing to share his
> thoughts with the WG. As a result, that person created a few slides that
> captured his feedback and presented these to the WG the next day during one
> of the side meetings.
>
> It would be really difficult to get even closer to what we achieved during
> this week if it was completely virtual.
>
> Regards,
>  Rifaat
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 3:37 PM Leif Johansson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>> --
>> 113attendees mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/113attendees
>>
> --
> 113attendees mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/113attendees
>