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

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Tue, 12 April 2016 15:42 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 BF3A612F00E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 08:42:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.702
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 Dtv6Yrr3xqSj for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 08:42:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 772DC12F012 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 08:42:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 473821C0663; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 08:42:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=1.tigertech; t=1460475743; bh=4KPFSC3+bw7cxE4jAp1x+gNVqOpBWdKjgftUIGaNp7w=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=HJ4SFuXIwG98rJ7FneeTUwaLm3+BlZ7f4qt2WipItaGxAi8Ir146LlnU86R+/Ec4j pMmCKnmUTHmGK5dtZdiKH/LUSndPQ1o/cAWO7dyBKS73yXZtRaUPdkJJ0MixQP5KGQ TaGcGoWHxuefKJtV+LDZ4GrW3sVd4L34oxd4Ani8=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6E60B540060; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 08:42:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Singapore]
To: Mary Barnes <mary.h.barnes@gmail.com>, chopps@chopps.org
References: <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> <87twj7eon7.fsf@tops.chopps.org> <20160412110839.GA20488@gsp.org> <8760vn82f2.fsf@tops.chopps.org> <20160412124639.GA27223@gsp.org> <87fuurgd8f.fsf@tops.chopps.org> <CABmDk8kCfTB_AKyqV4X+AghL2G7i+XcKR=tzV0jybM05k+UU4Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <570D175A.1040001@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 11:42:18 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABmDk8kCfTB_AKyqV4X+AghL2G7i+XcKR=tzV0jybM05k+UU4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Bay0tP6kfj4A2mQtkMOvkp9AYGY>
Cc: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>, "<ietf@ietf.org>" <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: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:42:25 -0000

I believe that there would be a real cost in moving to remote-only 
meetings.  Even putting aside the time zone difficulties, and the 
reduced effectiveness of in-meeting interaction, there are aspects of 
face-to-face interaction taht current remote technologies simply do not 
capture.
It was very helpful in BA (and at many previous IETF meetings) to be 
able to find time to talk with a small number of people concerned about 
an aspect of one working group.  I did that over meals, breaks, etc.  It 
sorted out issues far more effectively than email conversations (in 
several cases, we had tried to sort it out via email.  10 minutes 
face-to-face clarified what was being missed, and found a good path 
forward.)

Even in-meeting, when the meeting works well it takes advantage of the 
nature of face-to-face interactions.  Admittedly, many sessions do not 
need this, but many do.

Yours,
Joel

On 4/12/16 10:09 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 8:37 AM, <chopps@chopps.org
> <mailto:chopps@chopps.org>> wrote:
>
>
>     Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org <mailto:rsk@gsp.org>> writes:
>
>     > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 07:57:53AM -0400,chopps@chopps.org <mailto:chopps@chopps.org> wrote:
>     >> Your suggestion of not having them would subtract value from the process
>     >> though. I don't see the win.
>     >
>     > The win is that all of the time and effort and expense (all of which
>     > are finite resources) that go into those could be directed elsewhere.
>
>     The meetings and their fees are income positive, they aren't a drain on
>     resource, the opposite in fact.
>
> [MB] I would agree when it comes to dollars, but people (i.e., the
> effort to which Rich is referring) are also a resource and volunteers do
> the work.  If the only volunteers you get are from large companies, I
> think the IETF does lose.  With improved remote participation,
> individuals that aren't sponsored by large companies can continue to
> contribute.  Without it, we become ineffective.  [/MB]
>
>
>     > These meetings select for a highly limited (by circumstance, by necessity,
>     > and by choice) subset.  And once upon a time, when the 'net was much
>     > younger and more limited in terms of geography and scope, that might
>     > have been alright, because the subset mapped fairly well onto the larger
>     > set of people involved in networking.  But that's no longer true.
>     > And the difficulties/expense of travel are only going to get worse
>     > for the forseeable future: they're not going to get better.
>
>     I think it would be useful to get some real data to measure exactly how
>     highly limited that subset of people are. Perhaps as a simple first
>     shot we could take email sent to IETF working group mailing lists over
>     the last year, and cross reference that against the registrations lists
>     of the last 3 IETFs and see what percentage of people doing IETF work
>     cannot or choose not to attend the on-site meetings?
>
> [MB] There was a separate list of registered remote attendees for this
> recent meeting. You can take a look there and see a number of long time
> contributors and some WG chairs (myself included) that have participated
> remotely.  The very reason I did not go was due to lack of funding.
> There are a number of us that have contributed significantly over the
> past 15-30 years that would like to continue to do so but as independent
> consultants, some of these trips are just not fiscally possible.  I went
> to Yokohama so couldn't even entertain the idea of attending the meeting
> in BA without a sponsor.    And, I seriously doubt I can continue as a
> WG chair if I can't get funding in the future.  So, in the end, the
> current model self selects and benefits the larger companies over
> individuals that really do want to do work for the "good of the
> Internet" but just can't justify the expense.   [/MB]
>
>     Thanks,
>     Chris.
>
>
>      >
>      > ---rsk
>
>