Re: Concerns about Singapore

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

Agree about Buenos Aires.   We already do excellent virtual interims--I
think if your standard for whether we can do a virtual IETF is that virtual
interims work, we are already there.

I think that if we want to test this idea, what we need to do is designate
some future IETF virtual _now_, and then start preparing, rather than say
"oh, we should do a virtual" and then dither about when we might be ready.
  We will never be so ready that a virtual IETF feels identical to an
in-person IETF, so let's just abandon that idea and get started on making a
virtual IETF that, while different, is still a success.

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Tim Chown <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> To minimise the chances of a ‘Singapore’ happening again it would seem
> prudent to
>
> a) re-use previous successful meeting venues for the bulk of our meetings
> (say, every 5 in 6 meetings); this is one criteria for meeting selection as
> it stands anyway; that list might include venues like Prague, Berlin,
> Vancouver, etc.; we’d need to be clear in what ‘successful’ means - the
> meeting feedback forms provide one such mechanism;
>
> b) be transparent at an early stage about where new venues might be,
> whether by country or city, so there is a fair chance for people to give
> feedback; of course, how such feedback is weighed is an open question, but
> at least it would be there, and the IAOC can then make a decision ‘eyes
> wide open’.
>
> In such a system, Buenos Aires would have been a ‘1 in 6’ venue. In that
> light, I’d note that many people have said how much they enjoyed Buenos
> Aires as a meeting place. And while the IAOC probably feel rather down over
> the comments about Singapore, they should be praised for going out on
> something of a limb in making the Buenos Aires selection. (And I’d add that
> the enthusiasm and helpfulness of the LACNIC hosts was also fantastic.)
>
> In terms of virtual meetings, I’d suggest we try to hold more interim WG
> meetings, some completely virtually, and learn how to make those better. If
> we can regularly hold good quality wholly virtual interim meetings, then we
> can consider whether the same technology might be used for a larger meeting.
>
> Tim
>
> > On 12 Apr 2016, at 00:54, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > 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?
>
>