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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>