Re: Concerns about Singapore

Ted Lemon <> Tue, 12 April 2016 11:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9324912E480 for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 04:49:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wTP-cA1g_dR7 for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 04:49:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D49912E720 for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 04:49:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id g184so21256830lfb.3 for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 04:49:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=GEEzAlouvS+5GBjrrloVob2gbGzMSZ98jOvMJdcknu8=; b=SdMBxzwc3G975t18im8a1PFfQpiNxKgRIWmmgJH5i3wsbTbXdweK7aoEIKqGoIks+T xs0JDMtLTWINOJ+Z+iim9w/tnJvmSbn6mPOYnwlkLkJpsiJUZmtfF3Y4nVznhh9XT6H6 M3gRsmeBv+H/5a2DWW0+h8tqctxjZiwXXUUQdXrDZmWPBf5X/sCgb7CkNbRXQBcRXGVk i0LgPmF1qT1RwTHH6ZxGvVeOVd9sH1Ut3qvgd9gkLawtj7V0g618j/F5cOGOEGPVs2fY spHx5obly8UKHV/q1JVtrqmGN0IcsJPy9ajcwthPeace2ODQZN2On5PWinPAoEtWOZ9E bFew==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=GEEzAlouvS+5GBjrrloVob2gbGzMSZ98jOvMJdcknu8=; b=VnRaVlwr/P+cHZ1icOBheMte3ebnwYt+9uI7GnBo8xB/z2p0xJPGSqd+vMpJSrarlz Jm9Jrk+m6NtSaT4qoUpNd9mXAvi0S9cAYoMrE+SYiYF9hVdzqqeiwM85CAIpP/J3/93u gPYd0RIQ5OPZ36j8F4QRt7HW6ZIz+gS+r1lH1hb+YJCWGM3Y9KElXMMMzFYs109Bd/zl zVK6m1lan0VHAxYUbQqbM0ot2wFvzYZEqcFT2rTlfB9qLMsTWWxblRBRqON6bul0SGBP EZaxwaXmhM7Riae5TsNL9L5O+PbFi5EqyYgbW5oE/+5K8nuj2FXzoiEcYO8ewfOTACar VUgA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FWq77QMIMEXLBUQLd9rfyQY3AGLLgOLFZ3hlB7cFUpSYmIjbi4OxQvp96sZI+B/Wr9aoZa/nCWMy/+7nQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id w203mr1024402lfa.22.1460461782372; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 04:49:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 04:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: []
In-Reply-To: <EMEW3|9aaa87920b361e2e71efe9c7005e927cs3BChQ03tjc||>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <EMEW3|9aaa87920b361e2e71efe9c7005e927cs3BChQ03tjc||>
From: Ted Lemon <>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:49:02 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Concerns about Singapore
To: Tim Chown <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114b1592bf261505304841f9
Archived-At: <>
Cc: ietf <>
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 11:49:47 -0000

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 <> 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 <> 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?