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

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

Also, three physical sites would mean that I would not have hallway 
conversations ad hoc with folks at other physical sites.  A rather 
important problem if we want to keep this as one IETF.

Yours,
Joel

On 3/25/2022 12:44 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> 
> 
> On 3/25/22 12:39, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> An alternative would be to have THREE physical sites.  This would cut 
> down on CO2 from travel (meet shmoo goal) and get more into the venues.  
> Big challenge to have multiple multi-site setups.  There are 
> professional services that offer small such meeting sites; can that 
> model be scaled up to what we would need?
> 
> Would really stretch support services and probably raise the attendance 
> cost.
> 
> 
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
> 
> -- 
> Standard Robert Moskowitz
> Owner
> HTT Consulting
> C:248-219-2059
> F:248-968-2824
> E:[e-mail]
> 
> There's no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn't matter who 
> gets the credit
>