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

[Jen Linkova <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 3:36 PM Leif Johansson <[e-mail]> 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