Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Singapore]

<> Tue, 12 April 2016 13:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DC9712DF41 for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 06:37:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.896
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yZ8By85NECHW for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 06:37:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA84312DDA2 for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 06:37:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 20FDA6117B; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:37:06 +0000 (UTC)
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
User-agent: mu4e 0.9.16; emacs 24.5.1
From: <>
To: Rich Kulawiec <>
Subject: Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Singapore]
In-reply-to: <>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:37:04 -0400
Message-ID: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <>
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 13:37:08 -0000

Rich Kulawiec <> writes:

> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 07:57:53AM -0400, 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.

> 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?


> ---rsk