Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective

[Yoav Nir <[e-mail]>]

> On 9 Jun 2016, at 10:31 PM, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Melinda,
> 
> 
> On 6/9/16 8:39 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
>> Personally, I did not go because
>> it was clearly going to be very expensive to attend,
>> regardless.
> 
> I don't think it was more expensive than any meeting that would have
> occurred in Asia.  While agreeing with you that cost is a factor, I just
> want to point out the conflict between that factor and 1-1-1*.  Patrick
> McManus stated in the earlier megathread words to the effect that he
> didn't think there was a need for 3 plenary meetings per year.  I
> personally would like to not lose track of that point.  Would it make
> sense to do an experiment such that we drop one meeting for one year and
> instead require active working groups to hold an Interim or several
> virtual interims that fairly distribute timezone pain?

I’m very much opposed to encouraging F2F interim meetings. They almost invariably have very poor facilities for remote participation. If you’re lucky you get audio streaming from the meeting room and a jabber channel going back, and none of the microphone discipline that we have in a plenary meeting. Also no NOC team to fix stuff if it goes wrong.

Both httpbis and tls have recently made extensive use of F2F interims. The result was that in order to participate effectively in the discussion you needed to travel six times a year. I suppose if you were interested only in that working group you could skip the plenary meetings and attend just the interims, because the plenary had just 2 sessions and passable remote participation facilities. But if you didn’t attend the interims in person, you might as well have listened to a recording after the fact.

Yoav