Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and 111

thomas nadeau <> Sat, 09 January 2016 13:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6302B1A8769 for <>; Sat, 9 Jan 2016 05:57:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.011
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lKrjkDPIwyV9 for <>; Sat, 9 Jan 2016 05:57:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E0BA1A875A for <>; Sat, 9 Jan 2016 05:57:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; t=1452347827; bh=lmgpR4dv+iEC0I9POq+Pl4cXPCQrq3U4gYfuz5nhZA4=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=nVdfGDFnHQ2ueyCHEsryxhrtMmOEXkzfiMS2ljVB4FOosicWXcaj7QP7FekLZVN6/ qiE60vDn4kcWbA0KM4dM13OaDFtsGAa3b7nkw7b0ntIiRWxqL3pziM6LTA2RGWdMcN lEkG98sZTjoICVpl0uOPnHxRLHsCoZFWf891CKeU=
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and 111
From: thomas nadeau <>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (13C75)
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2016 08:57:09 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1601071125550.21147@rabdullah.local> <> <> <> <>
To: Jari Arkko <>
X-Info: aspam skipped due to (g_smite_skip_relay)
X-Encryption: SSL encrypted
X-MyRbl: Color=Unknown ip=
X-IP-stats: No info recorded yet Known=true ip=
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF Discussion <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2016 13:57:17 -0000

> On Jan 9, 2016, at 4:21 AM, Jari Arkko <> wrote:
> First, I wanted to agree with what Lou said - we could do much better
> documenting and being transparent about meeting location choices.
> Lou is working hard on that in the IAOC, by the way.
> Then one specific comment on Tom’s point:
>> While useful, many other very successful organizations meet only remotely and have periodic “summits” where people might or might not show up.  All actual work happens using remote tools and meeting venues.  I am not saying one is better than the other, but just that there are existence proofs of organizations working without requiring physical meetings.  I’ve tried to advocate strongly that this organization consider that, at least partially due to all the logistical reasons discussed not to mention the costs associated with physical meetings.
> I think this is a bit of a matter of degrees. You could argue that this is
> precisely what the IETF does. Most of our work happens on list, on
> writing complex documents and sharing them over the net, and
> perhaps more recently also in various virtual meetings.
> In most organisations people tend to value in-person
> communication to some extent, at least from time to time,
> including in the organisations that do summits. The
> question is to what extent, and I’m reasonably happy with the
> IETF tradeoffs in this. But, it is not like that couldn’t be improved
> either.
> Here’s a question that I think would be worthwhile to consider.
> We do create working groups in some cases even without running
> a physical BOF meeting, but mostly in cases where the creation of
> that working group is a no brainer. What would it take to run the
> next interesting/controversial BOF as a virtual meeting? It would
> great if we could do this, but I’m not sure it is easy either. (I’m not
> trying to eliminate the meetings as a useful venue to do BOFs,
> but in many cases the ability to decide the matter when it
> comes up as opposed to many months away might be useful
> for other reasons.)
> Jari

That sounds like something positive to try. I have setup several BoFs and have found that even for "difficult" ones, this would be useful as much of the hard work for  especially some non-wg-forming ones, are largely discussions where our remote tools would probably work. This might even help where we have had limited meeting space at the venue, which I know have been challenging a few times in the past.