Another strategic discussion (Re: IETF 107 and Corona Virus?)

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Mon, 17 February 2020 21:18 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.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 5C6BB120871 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 13:18:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 dRnlEqmrZQRP for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 13:18:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA3A6120052 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 13:18:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1164; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1581974311; x=1583183911; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date: references:to:in-reply-to:message-id; bh=dc7aEgH4Eo8yHaYG0xfyNBB8WhS0PGw56cQr/DlT5tY=; b=Ox4u/QOpsTuvbLN8+ZvqHRuFgQzMwGJiaZ4J8Z5osVS4fvOOdjpY1UFb twpt+VNcY2R0HctGuUCf05+5dWfuCXuxnjBp2IbyHn8VtzcQ44ylBV7NI tNnpz6N9/ylXT2Gw3D2WqbDvWvg8B2T5jVtOmW6B6BZP+pooqgYU5Lxuu s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AfCAA0Akte/4sNJK1mHQEBAQkBEQU?= =?us-ascii?q?FAYF7gimBQTKEPo8QlW+HXAkBAQEMAQEvBAEBhEACggQkOBMCAw0BAQUBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?CAQUEbYVDhWcGI0ocJQImAgJXBoM5gnysB3WBMopsgQ4qjCQaggCBOCCDCoE?= =?us-ascii?q?EhlcygiwElwCIdZAJgkQEgkuUBByPAowYpmmDMQIEBgUCFYFpIoFYMxoIGxV?= =?us-ascii?q?lAYJCPRIYDVaNX44tAkADjw8BAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.70,454,1574121600"; d="scan'208";a="718540867"
Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 17 Feb 2020 21:18:28 +0000
Received: from [10.82.176.8] ([10.82.176.8]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 01HLIPPX019966 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 21:18:27 GMT
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.60.0.2.5\))
Subject: Another strategic discussion (Re: IETF 107 and Corona Virus?)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 22:18:25 +0100
References: <066A4043-1390-4895-A3F8-0D6849A9967F@ietf.org> <059D8F35-5889-4CAF-9D94-CEF3D0C73EF7@me.com> <433B96AE-7414-4B61-9367-B8D1A139D6CF@ietf.org> <A4FB64911CE24F27FAFDA545@JcK-HP5.jck.com> <D3F7EC5C-CE55-4CF9-B573-F3BD2A504B56@ietf.org>
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <D3F7EC5C-CE55-4CF9-B573-F3BD2A504B56@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <F946DAA5-A874-42F9-9AFC-7119046E671F@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.60.0.2.5)
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.82.176.8, [10.82.176.8]
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-6.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NNpUVR4GWJEBkrxGgUKvWmIsxXc>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 21:18:33 -0000

I think one of the issues with discussions about creating remote meetings in these sorts of circumstances seems to necessitate someone being at a disadvantage from a timezone perspective.  It seems to me that one area to explore is analogous to our “share the pain” process for meeting locales, and seeing that WG virtual meetings in particular not unfairly disadvantage groups of participants.  I note that the RFC editor virtual meetings have occurred at different times precisely to follow this principle.  That idea might require refining: for instance, some WGs may be heavily Euro- or Ameri- or Asia-centric, allowing some weighting.

Also, Christian’s point about learning how and when to interject oneself as a remote participant is in play when there is an in-person meeting.  Pure virtual meetings do put everyone at that same disadvantage.

All of this to point out that as we eventually cycle back to the meeting modalities discussion some time from now with some data from the LLC, we should be thinking broadly about how we all get together… in person or virtually.