IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Eligibility-discuss] The "eligibility" list, and a virtual meeting

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Wed, 18 September 2019 14:41 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DAD0120856 for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 07:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6dstUnWAajRd for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 07:41:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AD1C120855 for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 07:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4807; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1568817686; x=1570027286; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=pbKrx5/MEcW5AnoZThe007YCZMD5laviQjjNpyUBldQ=; b=VGfBtCFq2ODy5sf33aC/3kpHpEbU1jVbfAlUWNJyy0HrYF2Dg3xzUTtt Y5S4HU0i5k+gGpe0gv9uIMSCfESWmZ+4FYC2zzUXOxza2W595oBjfAxMJ 7RVPytAN6eG6PdXQdADWwGdXNFIh//BkpVyLqI/edBTBWwjso7mTvIDpN M=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 488
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AWAABdQYJd/xbLJq1mGgEBAQEBAgEBAQEHAgEBAQGBVgIBAQEBCwGDVyASKoQiiHyIIZMWiAYCBwEBAQkDAQEvAQGEPwKDJjcGDgIDCQEBBAEBAQIBBQRthTmFSgEBAQECASNWBQsLBBQqAgJXBhMbgwcBgXsPsGCBMoVMhGgQgTQBgVCKUIF/gTgfgkw+h08ygiYElX2IHo5igiyCLoETkUMbjX+LIqQJgxECBAYFAhWBaCKBWDMaCBsVOyoBgkE+EhAUkBIDPgMwkHYBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,520,1559520000"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="16967760"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 18 Sep 2019 14:41:24 +0000
Received: from [10.61.223.208] ([10.61.223.208]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x8IEfNBZ000705 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:41:24 GMT
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <3A008D1C-70A1-4BE7-A7FC-3FE1C93BB13E@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F0242977-623C-42E1-B145-C4A81B91628F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 16:41:23 +0200
In-Reply-To: <e55b2725-0320-c111-bc2f-bbecd2bad34b@nomountain.net>
Cc: eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@nomountain.net>
References: <CALaySJ+BEoDd5aas9VfAmfcF+H_54w4ETNafVwFAObhY_A2v-Q@mail.gmail.com> <C90E6D6D-D058-40A5-AA3B-2D2002077016@episteme.net> <CALaySJJggQqYhVHSdKCx4BvpiR31oodx9C9NkzfMoFGbUv+gmg@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJKxbwYXnE7gcgwmuBUWg_Q+QSx-yYtTCOLoQesB6JLojg@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJJh7zvuuuxcs-kE=LaaZP1aXiaT3HpQ30tt4DNOMMP0oQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMrnPv9AMhQgv4ciq2DypyB_rkqdwNkyuXgNqyHVGcpzQ@mail.gmail.com> <03d701d56d8d$5849b720$08dd2560$@olddog.co.uk> <CABcZeBMyzwXu+=w511aJcOPEu1CJ7PqSfyq3y6ya+j0DPQkSVg@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20190917153221.0780aa08@elandnews.com> <CABcZeBNP3F-9er-Uv01bkmuLpwYq2ju3nUH0dH3gqFMFuz_Gpw@mail.gmail.com> <12C94CE5-899D-4D0C-9C03-5F39DBC9D2F3@cisco.com> <e55b2725-0320-c111-bc2f-bbecd2bad34b@nomountain.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.223.208, [10.61.223.208]
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eligibility-discuss/MqmW4By7Wy6r2bH549h3JcMrNvs>
Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] The "eligibility" list, and a virtual meeting
X-BeenThere: eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <eligibility-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/eligibility-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:41:29 -0000

Hi Melinda,

> On 18 Sep 2019, at 16:23, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@nomountain.net> wrote:
> 
> Signed PGP part
> On 9/17/19 11:08 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> Is there a reasonable argument to be made that someone who participates
>> in person is more impacted by poor leadership than one who participates
>> remotely?
> 
> Having been both remote and onsite for many many many meetings,
> I'd argue that the converse is true.  There have been sessions
> in which chairs were inattentive to remote queues, instances of
> decisions being made by vote in a meeting session, etc.

Totally agree.

> 
> Can you give some examples of the sorts of things you've got in
> mind?


I have no such examples, and I asked what I hope is viewed as a rhetorical question to point out that it really isn’t a question as to whether it is a problem that remote participants cannot take part in recalls: it is.  Whether we can find an appropriate solution that doesn’t create additional substantial risks, and how we characterize those risks is the question to which we should devote ourselves.

Eliot

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email