Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Singapore]
Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 12 April 2016 16:25 UTC
Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 A413012D9A3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 vVTWAhPtLS0c for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:25:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x229.google.com (mail-lf0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D010312E28D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x229.google.com with SMTP id j11so32736130lfb.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=XpzB4d+GqDfxukzoQQw48I6TYMOBEs6iydfPG8qXM5k=; b=LkY1nyNoccAW+0Hyd03QQIr4En7wrNuIHtEix3CFRzh8En/n5Ku76jljYc9kFQycWM nxyGQCon7JrLOnBWHbEEzhtTfOTpKUXz7mh8u0hO4HHQjmHFILZG8mDObr4rQnoRhs09 xhxmlKHz4TrR/3wFainBtfKWC3/RAh8Vk0SXnwnofogjZjSEYYQmZY+wj4d9+7M1P43u sxG6AqNCZtInn9e2mRdwTN+qU0nnOmobQe0cBPHgGQk6kOPtERT9BREG3NdZwGF3sZ60 BYgFwahegqqZSqIm3obPgZkJ0mccwBe2geqAhSX23J02Z54Al7bYAw13x7K4zT8fuZ/1 snYw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XpzB4d+GqDfxukzoQQw48I6TYMOBEs6iydfPG8qXM5k=; b=X0r5UU3QNTQchUnKaxeTEe4tHb7fevSXY0CPHfnZsn9TMlos1MlFCmhQCg/qG12xc4 wuNDhjgdDkyihBlXugWU+v7b+0N10nMjUQsPhQmqX4vupHTKQm1uk67zzV6e6cpAHR/C JC1KTj4MzCVO+mIIeUffDfJy9Xrqh//zJ3/rl2LN65bbR64GO7RNryWGzKGq9OQxZVQG HgvOYmMS06tzQGo7rfLv+0GnYRA1LK+uVWpZODzsyC69KHfo6VimNZTZlt3spXBVVk/0 ivT4amsMVtKjEauChOGUYQZU4IGKScO+0kz6CEkI0m7JEjx5Ha5jgJUX9xXE6zOeqXrU XV5w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FUNQYYtTGSocD2rLmrrVr1RCOvkep6t9RVUZGo3LfDT+hwp4jzTrD8OJyzMU9qNCIlWceU12G7oY46WwQ==
X-Received: by 10.112.169.105 with SMTP id ad9mr1740232lbc.135.1460478300966; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:25:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.40.136 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [71.233.41.235]
In-Reply-To: <570D1F04.8050701@joelhalpern.com>
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> <570D175A.1040001@joelhalpern.com> <CAPt1N1n0_UJ5AVzO=dyvzeLtYi0b8g5894wyhctwPwqTzme-PQ@mail.gmail.com> <570D1F04.8050701@joelhalpern.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:24:21 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1=-wxMj+k=8Kx9yXSnWnSR-hXX9AWp90Mgz8eZOueGoFA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Singapore]
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c38c0854e74a05304c1a7e"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/F6wWy9Kz7J_qjwasX130i0hFnSA>
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 16:25:19 -0000
I think there was a story like that about football players too. However, I have not had the same experience you have. I think that zero f2f meetings is bad, and Iim not advocating that. But it is quite possible to be effective in a voice chat, and even more so in a video chat. The idea of a virtual meeting would be to try to set things up so that peoples schedules are cleared and we can have informal meetings as well as formal ones. On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote: > Ted, you missed my point. Yes, I can arrange a call with the relevant > people. And I frequently do. > It is harder, but that would be acceptable. > > The important part is that such calls are MUCH less effective than > face-to-face discussions. There are lots of well-known reasons for this. > > And no, inc ase it was not obvious, without the face-to-face meeting, > there is no way to arrange such face-to-face meetings. > > Yes, we should work to make remote participation more effective. Doing > away with the face-to-face meetings reminds me of the old SF story of the > ballet dancers who were forced to dance wearing extra weights, to be "fair" > to the less talented dancers. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 4/12/16 12:00 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > >> This is all true, but the idea that it can't be replicated online is >> silly. How did you arrange to have lunch with these people? You went >> looking for them, rounded them up, and sat down to lunch. You can do >> that online as well. >> >> It is certainly true that random conversation in the halls can also >> happen and lead to useful consequences, but having taken heavy advantage >> of "running into people" in BA, I can tell you that a lot of it was >> deliberate, and the parts that weren't probably would have been >> triggered by WG meetings even if they hadn't been triggered by just >> running into someone familiar in the lobby of the Hilton. >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com >> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>> wrote: >> >> 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> >> <mailto:chopps@chopps.org <mailto:chopps@chopps.org>>> wrote: >> >> >> Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org <mailto:rsk@gsp.org> >> <mailto: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> >> <mailto: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 >> >> >> >> >>
- Concerns about Singapore Jari Arkko
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Adam Roach
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Dhruv Dhody
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Jeffrey Haas
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Leif Johansson
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Dhruv Dhody
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Donald Eastlake
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Leif Johansson
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: Concerns about Singapore David Conrad
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Melinda Shore
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Leif Johansson
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Laurent Ciavaglia
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Leif Johansson
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Laurent Ciavaglia
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Jared Mauch
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Yoav Nir
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: Concerns about Singapore John C Klensin
- A distinction along Pete's dimensions (was: Re: C… John C Klensin
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Ted Lemon
- Re: A distinction along Pete's dimensions Dave Crocker
- Re: A distinction along Pete's dimensions Ted Lemon
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Randy Bush
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Leif Johansson
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Leif Johansson
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Christian Hopps
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: Concerns about Singapore nalini.elkins
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Yoav Nir
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Ole Jacobsen
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: A distinction along Pete's dimensions Jari Arkko
- China Ole Jacobsen
- SV: Concerns about Singapore Anne-Marie Eklund-Löwinder
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Dirk-Willem van Gulik
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Paul Wouters
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Patrik Fältström
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Michael Richardson
- Re: China Jeffrey Haas
- Re: China Ted Lemon
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Stefan Winter
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Andrew Allen
- Re: China Michael Richardson
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Toerless Eckert (eckert)
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Michael Richardson
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Dave Crocker
- Re: A distinction along Pete's dimensions Ray Pelletier
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Andrew Allen
- Re: China Scott Bradner
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Yoav Nir
- Re: China Tim Chown
- Re: China Ray Pelletier
- Re: China Mary Barnes
- Re: SV: Concerns about Singapore Martin Rex
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Dave Crocker
- Re: China HANSEN, TONY L
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Ole Jacobsen
- Re: Concerns about Singapore David Morris
- Re: China Ole Jacobsen
- Re: China Melinda Shore
- Re: China Ole Jacobsen
- Re: China Melinda Shore
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Michael Richardson
- Re: Concerns about Singapore John G. Scudder
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Ole Jacobsen
- Follow-ups: Concerns about Singapore Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Harish Pillay
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Harish Pillay
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Harish Pillay
- Re: China JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: China Ray Pelletier
- Re: China Stewart Bryant
- Re: China Ole Jacobsen
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Randy Bush
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Randy Bush
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Randy Bush
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Ole Jacobsen
- Re: Concerns about Singapore John C Klensin
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Yoav Nir
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Andrew Allen
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Yoav Nir
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Melinda Shore
- Re: Concerns about Singapore joel jaeggli
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Melinda Shore
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Ole Jacobsen
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Michael StJohns
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Melinda Shore
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Randy Bush
- Re: Concerns about Singapore John C Klensin
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Patrik Fältström
- Re: Concerns about Singapore John C Klensin
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Warren Kumari
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Andrew Allen
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Andrew Allen
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Andrew Allen
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Leif Johansson
- Re: Concerns about Singapore nalini.elkins
- Re: Concerns about Singapore chopps
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Randy Bush
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Michael StJohns
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Ole Jacobsen
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Randy Bush
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Michael StJohns
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Dave Crocker
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Ole Jacobsen
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Jared Mauch
- Re: Concerns about Singapore and other places John Levine
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Dave Crocker
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Michael StJohns
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Robert Withers
- Re: Concerns about Singapore chopps
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Vinayak Hegde
- Re: Concerns about Singapore John C Klensin
- RE: Concerns about Singapore Andrew Allen
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Hutton, Andrew
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Stephen Farrell
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Rich Kulawiec
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Yoav Nir
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Ted Lemon
- Re: Concerns about Singapore John C Klensin
- Virtual Meetings John Leslie
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Yoav Nir
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Yoav Nir
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Ted Lemon
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Stewart Bryant
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Dave Crocker
- Re: Concerns about Singapore chopps
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Richard Shockey
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Jared Mauch
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Rich Kulawiec
- 1000 person virtual meeting (Was: Re: Concerns ab… Stephen Farrell
- Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Singapo… chopps
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Ted Lemon
- Re: 1000 person virtual meeting (Was: Re: Concern… David Farmer
- Meetecho was Re: Concerns about Singapore lloyd.wood
- Re: 1000 person virtual meeting (Was: Re: Concern… Ted Lemon
- Re: Concerns about Singapore George Michaelson
- Re: 1000 person virtual meeting (Was: Re: Concern… Stephen Farrell
- Re: 1000 person virtual meeting (Was: Re: Concern… Mark Andrews
- Re: 1000 person virtual meeting (Was: Re: Concern… Miles Fidelman
- Re: Meetecho was Re: Concerns about Singapore Jared Mauch
- Re: 1000 person virtual meeting (Was: Re: Concern… Stephen Farrell
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Ted Lemon
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Harald Alvestrand
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Rich Kulawiec
- Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Sin… Rich Kulawiec
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Tim Chown
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Tim Chown
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Ted Lemon
- Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Sin… chopps
- Re: Meetecho was Re: Concerns about Singapore Mikael Abrahamsson
- Virtual IETFs (was: Re: Concerns about Singapore) Tim Chown
- Re: Meetecho was Re: Concerns about Singapore Tim Chown
- Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Sin… Rich Kulawiec
- Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Sin… Loa Andersson
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Loa Andersson
- Re: Virtual IETFs (was: Re: Concerns about Singap… Ted Lemon
- Re: Virtual IETFs (was: Re: Concerns about Singap… Alia Atlas
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Ted Lemon
- Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Sin… chopps
- Re: Virtual IETFs (was: Re: Concerns about Singap… Tim Chown
- Re: Virtual IETFs (was: Re: Concerns about Singap… Ted Lemon
- Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Sin… Mary Barnes
- Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Sin… Christian Hopps
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Ole Jacobsen
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Theodore V Faber
- Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Sin… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Sin… Ted Lemon
- Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Sin… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Concerns about Singapore and other places Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Sin… Ted Lemon
- Re: Concerns about Singapore and other places Ted Lemon
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Dhruv Dhody
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Ted Lemon
- Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Sin… Melinda Shore
- Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Sin… Melinda Shore
- Re: Concerns about Singapore and other places Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Sin… Theodore V Faber
- Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Sin… Miles Fidelman
- Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Sin… Theodore V Faber
- Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Sin… Melinda Shore
- Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Sin… chopps
- Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Sin… chopps
- Re: Concerns about Singapore HANSEN, TONY L
- Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Sin… Melinda Shore
- Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Sin… Melinda Shore
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Stewart Bryant
- Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Sin… Andy Bierman
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Ted Lemon
- Re: Concerns about Singapore and other places John R Levine
- UK blacklist (Re: Concerns about Singapore and ot… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: UK blacklist (Re: Concerns about Singapore an… Christopher Morrow
- Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Sin… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Sin… Alia Atlas
- Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Sin… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: UK blacklist (Re: Concerns about Singapore an… Tim Chown
- Re: Concerns about Singapore and other places Tony Finch
- Re: Concerns about Singapore and other places tom p.
- Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Sin… Yoav Nir
- Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Sin… Loa Andersson
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Rich Kulawiec
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Jeffrey Haas
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Ted Lemon
- Re: Concerns about Singapore Theodore V Faber
- Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Sin… Brian E Carpenter