Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Thu, 09 June 2016 19:31 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.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 6431A12B05C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 12:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.947
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.947 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_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 X3sXvTOMGbjo for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 12:31:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E28D612D0FB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 12:31:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2569; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1465500704; x=1466710304; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=7gE3luX30VHaNFe4uJqCjJqdDtEFx0r2rCU4U8gIudg=; b=GfzgWRk0WVSuBdxozVOjWagFDbPmtoWe5mbPEvVGeaUqWgL+VO2izc9P xdR913N6hU/jhjOlAlmCtPWlUh+MuI+15OdnSd9+CiPI9nYUTzJ5kIVjg jYfMVPwVjZIT23cC8GR5yme8BllD2y1WG0U20PMRd6NSktKv81pvSZz+K U=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CoBABWrFlX/xbLJq1ehD+5XYIPgXqGEwKBcxIBAQEBAQEBZSeERgEBBCNmCxgqAgJXBgEMCAEBiCutS5EBAQEBAQEBAQECAQEBAQEBARIOiB6CVoE5hgiCWQEEmFWDLYFpiRGJRIVcj2UlAS6CBw0PgU06ijoBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,446,1459814400"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="635083096"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Jun 2016 19:31:41 +0000
Received: from [10.61.210.152] ([10.61.210.152]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u59JVfaK013854; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 19:31:41 GMT
Subject: Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>, ietf@ietf.org
References: <20160608135632.20063.81792.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <256CE0D6-1A2A-459A-9800-FAF1960EDD09@consulintel.es> <D6E8D8D5-EB54-412C-9620-A8A3B2EC674B@gmail.com> <CAC8QAcewGyG3hTy4vPzuu69mznXOC-gMrODQefUqscqfwKwKTg@mail.gmail.com> <82901186-58D0-4C71-9562-57F90DFCE0CF@gmail.com> <CAC8QAcfia-boXPGGa-8ioh-Tcg4pdEnuH2C+=e7swE2g1c2ZTg@mail.gmail.com> <cd3058b4-28f7-59d2-1596-cdf8c6ea359e@gmail.com>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <9ebfd327-9faf-dc0b-914f-138a2be4908f@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 21:31:41 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <cd3058b4-28f7-59d2-1596-cdf8c6ea359e@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="PetcRtnmXIKCirTx8gWsRui9Mcc00i01M"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Bh1wN5JFJQ59nHF933S_AQOJjSc>
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: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 19:31:45 -0000

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?

Eliot