Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Singapore]

Melinda Shore <> Tue, 12 April 2016 17:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FFA412E59E for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:02:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qxaYENa705Bn for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:02:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25F5D12E4AE for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:02:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id zm5so16787184pac.0 for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:02:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=N+YVmNv6VMkUl3HMEMKyt8kLUwfPi5+uRLH785gT8wc=; b=W4sa0f6E0h3EgGD5qKLe94nxun2Oo9xTQHLrSro2EeZks3CzQN3srk6FhvcgswTg0k Fvkm4BSUdosvoBH58aXlgiBYqYW6emCuhHRN1hpsydxh3YGa7o8ddBOtGdMTsUp1xxs+ 01+T1y6avCbC5hyzTIH1i4TTnkF2Au3cay8dAiUXpUhBN8G5/J5ayHnG1Bunm/S+/rqX wDTpIY2JR5SDyPMvmIJtheGNzGlWaoPBSbYCwQ3DO6SjaQsazrF18Myj7QFOfItYQd31 GIo95hJ+Cw1YQEELcgOspxBxkZcU8y93ehxrpPD0bpliXtkuK3ZUZuvptl10hNjtTY83 vMKA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=N+YVmNv6VMkUl3HMEMKyt8kLUwfPi5+uRLH785gT8wc=; b=QLa3y3muCy9MmRue6AM2ZHzJwyLbEt69Js6x8tF+DKZeLdsqqwbb5IPmx6hYu9lvy/ DmU3fqnRq9hBiQGptkUvWzH8IbHXopUADUu6UuLjhqqYN00L3xFGluAoBAqMJfmPU687 dfaRZILlzTxCin7O/El/G6Iw0fgVMhIn61kwvE7wCkp0QWWq0HHkDMn1dbEPuJ/12oR8 CZhp8FM/Y8k+FDb5VtmOQjPtHJ3pnkKqJSRss4BF+0hVZbCCCKSNilvtnoH8vxOho9po Khv8U8yHdf/l7T9pnchyWoNVAIWtYfLu1nSUSzb9SqATXCY3oGOJ8O4ZcQBNad8Zo7Oi Cvhw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXNrm8z2J44l+Le0jRdI2SiaTnaJWJTwr5pqf5SvmIHCnJoe9uWrv55ZEToEh7rGg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id xl8mr6091230pab.132.1460480546922; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:02:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Melindas-MacBook-Pro.local ( []) by with ESMTPSA id to9sm45051315pab.27.2016. for <> (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:02:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Singapore]
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Melinda Shore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:02:44 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 17:02:35 -0000

On 4/12/16 3:57 AM, wrote:
> Rich Kulawiec <> writes:
>> Because it works exclusively for the elite, privileged few.  (And no
>> doubt: it works quite well.)  But it's the antithesis of inclusion
>> and diversity -- and I think those qualities are increasingly necessary.
> But this is not how the IETF operates.

Actually, it's very much how the IETF operates in practice,
particularly with meeting participation becoming increasingly
expensive and with increased participation from "standards
professionals."  If you've been to meetings you'll have
noticed some chairs taking votes in meetings (rather than
relying on consensus processes) and saying that they'll
ratify or confirm that decision on the mailing list (if
they remember - sometimes they don't).

In some sense the Singapore announcement felt to me as if
we'd completed the transition to plain ol' standards body,
distinguishable from the others by what we say rather than
by what we do.

One of the things I've been thinking about over the past
<n> years is how to reduce our reliance on meetings, and
I'm overdue on writing up a draft on it.  I think it's
an important question, since de-emphasizing (not eliminating)
meetings is one thing we can do to keep participation more
open and accessible.