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

<> Tue, 12 April 2016 11:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 793BB12DE63 for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 04:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.896
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xJWHMZygpi90 for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 04:57:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AB9412DE54 for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 04:57:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9DB3E6117B; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 11:57:54 +0000 (UTC)
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
User-agent: mu4e 0.9.16; emacs 24.5.1
From: <>
To: Rich Kulawiec <>
Subject: Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Singapore]
In-reply-to: <>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:57:53 -0400
Message-ID: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
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 11:57:56 -0000

Rich Kulawiec <> writes:

> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 07:01:16PM -0400, wrote:
>> Why would we want to get rid of such a rich source of inspiration and
>> invention?
> 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. In fact we mandate that the use
of mailing lists to make sure this isn't the case. The meetings are in
addition to the mailing list, and more recently the virtual interim
meetings (which I have found to be very useful as well), and we strive
to make them as accessible as possible remotely as well.

The face to face meetings add real value to the process, and b/c they
are not mandatory they should not subtract value from the process. Your
suggestion of not having them would subtract value from the process
though. I don't see the win.

It would be great if everyone who wished to could attend the meetings to
take part in that added value though. The fact that some people cannot
is not reason abandon the meetings, but rather a reason to try and make
them as easy to attend as possible. The 1+1+1 format helps here, but so
does picking affordable sites to travel to and stay in. The conference
fee could be quite high for an individual contributor I think, we should
perhaps explore a reduced fee for individuals when this would make the
difference between attending and not. In any case I think we can and
should continue to work on this front for sure.


> ---rsk