Re: Concerns about Singapore

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Mon, 11 April 2016 23:55 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 602B412D1C1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:55:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 OXyBxxe0ZGwK for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:55:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x22b.google.com (mail-lf0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FC9312E627 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:55:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id e190so2493773lfe.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:55:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ivJfiShQS6wJvcO1BeP2XK5wlnqEJb36d5H3pcwnkvI=; b=chmnaH3K+WHo4jPqxO4875/DyyoQSE3Q+zuQem618Yz0hqYeUeq6AOl3YKNvlRq54t EQ+pd4cW7dZ3qjFgv4zElBB/0vBE6jP9MdvPTq6TyXySqFsnJkl/RmThxaw6Uqdu6vCU NQxrtph3hMefXktUjO+yvVYeP5nOQTjjo+Kn0xRP9VNJ7js/+fVh6WtIfQ+bHw9wM96r FKxZnzP1JYODpm4Pp3zCCnd41YuXlHq0L1lbpvX2ncZ4EsBVix3JPVmWZSpTJhHAS7f9 4gVAKBmwCYB5+RWkZeLL0m/QtDr7SKznKoeL7+tKA0ApvjYLgXHIF1Q6PbCeJ6sYFbkC PdIw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ivJfiShQS6wJvcO1BeP2XK5wlnqEJb36d5H3pcwnkvI=; b=Pi/xZNkTxQo3SvTla7bWF9LwVcNK3iI1CO52dMtaGwMrbMNoQfknUoNLtKJYD1PwL8 5MtFiTuTRvZolhtNcBMiQH+1CbZDSzuLcwFsHsAhL3PcIKO+I+esRt8buet4HbERlb4U ifH7Pyzm13tLfBX8zRNg06JsT4CtMjBNtbfuoEY+MqjdMPi498Xifyo/8YWljC6zOxX1 3Le2z2WbveV0xZMoZHokGNuCN4Io/iNo0TdWzdKNdcHBuwulYDhqJbLXsr/evdooneDX 8QvaOQppWcDxpYNJCCJ4xt4A948sUlf6r5Tg7stfI+XZ+I7jCmmPHq0kMENmQM2allRy XrXA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FUrBqlmArbruBoa8TzevbvB2aJnrDGYoGL+oQAQTLtdgzLzW7HnYlTQJOby+5laGUkPeXsXT/N45yFbjA==
X-Received: by 10.112.13.8 with SMTP id d8mr78821lbc.110.1460418905323; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:55:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.40.136 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:54:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [71.233.41.235]
In-Reply-To: <20160411223403.GA6743@gsp.org>
References: <m260vp7eke.wl%randy@psg.com> <570A6458.3050206@comcast.net> <m21t6d7c9t.wl%randy@psg.com> <570A67B4.3010206@comcast.net> <570AB3AF.2050401@gmail.com> <87twj99c6w.fsf@tops.chopps.org> <CAKe6YvMyp-DyeDwpPY6KYmbDbnpgnvVk_cUStnA32wmgDWcz3w@mail.gmail.com> <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233A62AA18@XMB122CNC.rim.net> <20160411104519.GA19092@gsp.org> <3F48466D-390C-4C18-B958-732AE3E46FF1@gmail.com> <20160411223403.GA6743@gsp.org>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 19:54:25 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1nNo0=JSptQdWRZCFy1v-m6Q8NQy4WVGHtnRJuFZFmMig@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Concerns about Singapore
To: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3b44e1351c205303e462a
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/6lvKJ5NHrKby2VzZgQ0cqP7z2JI>
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 23:55:11 -0000

While I do not think it's true that we can entirely get away without doing
in-person meetings, I do agree with you that we can do better at doing
remote meetings.   Perhaps we should let this unfortunate event drive us to
make the attempt.

If we were to attempt such a thing, how do you think it would work?

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 03:17:39PM +0300, Yoav Nir wrote:
> > I don???t believe that this technology exists.
>
> People have remote meetings all day, every day.   Lots of technology
> exists, more is being invented all the time.  Perhaps (to follow
> on your mention of Meetecho in 1995) if 20 years had been invested
> in making it work for the IETF then it would be working by now.
>
> > Yeah, perhaps, some day when we???re all wearing virtual reality
> > headsets and our avatars are hanging out in a virtual venue, and we all
> > have sufficient equipment and bandwidth to handle all that. We???re not
> > there yet.
>
> Nor is there any need to go there.  Meetings do not require VR.
>
> > Virtual meetings with the technology we have today makes it very hard
> > for people with mediocre English to follow the discussion.
>
> That's (a) not a very big problem and (b) a solvable problem.
>
>
> What I'm hearing is a lot of we've-always-done-it-this-way.  Well,
> that's not working very well except for the privileged elite few
> (most of whom are backed by corporations).  And I understand
> that those with plenty of money and time and freedom have gotten
> comfortable with how-things-are-done.  It's an easy thing to do,
> I've done it myself.   But it doesn't serve the long-term interests
> of the IETF or the Internet well.
>
> ---rsk
>
>