IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Thinking laterally

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Fri, 27 February 2015 16:50 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42A8B1ACDA1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:50:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.044
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.044 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=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 xKr_jT_-F6qG for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:50:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a77.g.dreamhost.com (sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DFD11A9248 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:49:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a77.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a77.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 226D99405E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:49:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type; s=cryptonector.com; bh=uVBi7xGPEqoJnzXqssfM kZXBX/Y=; b=DgAO/B00dQuPBvZnfxtss5e0hkddl/7Dwrr6amDwFLkaxJxuHVjq fTQL7BmK8CyXbo76r+UJnCi57cPOaha7T8OfDDfPGCd1H+MIk1YLTlTZDGDMhB9T DncaH4JS+9EAgApoH/vv/xFPwX2BpV+p/Avy8W1MsdP8JfJI98UQotg=
Received: from mail-ie0-f174.google.com (mail-ie0-f174.google.com [209.85.223.174]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a77.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 061349405C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:49:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iecrl12 with SMTP id rl12so32284066iec.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:49:53 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.36.104 with SMTP id p8mr5406719igj.16.1425055793599; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:49:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.64.130.66 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:49:53 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1B0138B5-6FAA-436C-B061-34944460D5A9@nominum.com>
References: <CAMm+LwiLLG8B9vni8moVW3-zufiZdBsPym3vOHDnZ3msGwWyYQ@mail.gmail.com> <7A2564FD-43D1-4CAD-AAAC-C5312B3C066D@nominum.com> <85DB1605D31E310D155BE6F0@caldav.corp.apple.com> <1B0138B5-6FAA-436C-B061-34944460D5A9@nominum.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:49:53 -0600
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOgdA1EZwgZ_O3T+_GAgMqsO9Kp7O92LeST3HdikBmOiag@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Thinking laterally
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Nib-PufPMvBvzF-Y48DSEh78g94>
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:50:32 -0000

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2015, at 10:48 AM, Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name> wrote:
>> I wonder how many current attendees would suddenly find themselves having to participate remotely after their CFO decided they don't really need to spend all that money to send them some place to sit in a meeting not apparently doing anything.
>
> This would be a great outcome.

That would be a cultural disaster for the IETF.  If you don't have to
go anywhere to attend, will you even make time for more than the WG
meetings in which you have a direct interest?  Probably not.  And what
of all the hallway and bar BoFs?  Gone.

But remote participation fees have nothing to do with hastening such
an outcome.  Remote participation experience does.  But I suspect that
f2f participation is always just a matter of travel budget: either you
have it (you'll attend) or you don't (you won't attend).

Nico
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email