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

<chopps@chopps.org> Tue, 12 April 2016 13:37 UTC

Return-Path: <chopps@chopps.org>
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 0DC9712DF41 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 06:37:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.896
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yZ8By85NECHW for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 06:37:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA84312DDA2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 06:37:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tops.chopps.org (24-247-68-31.dhcp.trcy.mi.charter.com [24.247.68.31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 20FDA6117B; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:37:06 +0000 (UTC)
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>
User-agent: mu4e 0.9.16; emacs 24.5.1
From: <chopps@chopps.org>
To: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
Subject: Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Singapore]
In-reply-to: <20160412124639.GA27223@gsp.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:37:04 -0400
Message-ID: <87fuurgd8f.fsf@tops.chopps.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/MC9qx96UvjVDL7usDL2V2HBrPxs>
Cc: 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 13:37:08 -0000

Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> writes:

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

> 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?

Thanks,
Chris.


>
> ---rsk