Re: Concerns about Singapore

George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org> Tue, 12 April 2016 00:18 UTC

Return-Path: <ggm@algebras.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 0B21B12EFDB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:18:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=algebras-org.20150623.gappssmtp.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 mkPesImSCCjx for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:18:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22e.google.com (mail-oi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 254A812EFE8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:18:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id y204so3086936oie.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:18:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=algebras-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=4R/32mUYD7WaF6kByjdxVfn04LTMxEmNd7YF4vH7Km8=; b=FNq21PkygrU0cLfPAPrXygiKiv/MRFcA/sTrES/iobBKkq5VITqAxRLSHfEqS5V/UJ aH2PowiyCXt28GeylHFEWf/ODsk+vsOw9Q6I5jpXYVaq7hxDBNUKqNAH9xwuITnuKhF6 OTwju+BlosglIir7AXz1pW6R6PlZ6YsbXmRdYrUvdMWgE5v8bPL7OMckHy6hm86RFj+M wVEoI/1XwftKz/NQc6BoJID7cPA9Z8ErkxHV6QqiymeBKBQ7KhxwIguW8CivVJ8vWyj+ jJzZYKQcUU/YAe4qlDfBqsb4WRdXYZYUpRcany94oMa5QueRHM1S7y0ZwclXjH+7pkvs sPIg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=4R/32mUYD7WaF6kByjdxVfn04LTMxEmNd7YF4vH7Km8=; b=aDy+UHY9utxmsg+p+5M/LE7TeAjbTe5idWdqjanSo39Dj5WXF9TF3wB9iPzxK6iDQ6 hqk9ufQ5WTH+jc9tjHneWK5YuCQrFVWUYkSTg5+qkpwInW31hycScsZOrQKkP2DUCwk6 cRdyGWq5f6+czJRvUhcZZYtX9tr+DQogCtAaLjWFI6/QcaHZLEHCSSy6G7xiWgtkQdIf eTwnLmE0If5e1YPkxYuZz7sxzRdPrJ3DtISLhtWra5JeF5BTjaTyyPQmKtRUjN1Bfrtb Io3SWqDmXqXi76WizVNzdEkPeypnKb2hcWavCswsuHmfeME5S5xIDqlkpua031JguXFP 5AVw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXwyMFFXPI8RbKHj9q80NqIp77sdCa+LpxMNGDOUmBIf47aFdr8GQwb5HbXFpY5UEE/NIB8M3qhfO1Oww==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.202.105.205 with SMTP id e196mr96353oic.113.1460420334485; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:18:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.182.19.225 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:18:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [2001:dc0:a000:4:b038:4565:ffb1:47d1]
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1nNo0=JSptQdWRZCFy1v-m6Q8NQy4WVGHtnRJuFZFmMig@mail.gmail.com>
References: <m260vp7eke.wl%randy@psg.com> <570A6458.3050206@comcast.net> <m21t6d7c9t.wl%randy@psg.com> <570A67B4.3010206@comcast.net> <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> <CAPt1N1nNo0=JSptQdWRZCFy1v-m6Q8NQy4WVGHtnRJuFZFmMig@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:18:54 +1000
Message-ID: <CAKr6gn1KmNcgNwbPHZWB2aJQAuchz4eB7gxJhV2Dsbc1Z50kDw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Concerns about Singapore
From: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/O-O1OO1wuodvELWD_rs9IK_W1SI>
Cc: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>, ietf <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 00:18:58 -0000

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
> While I do not think it's true that we can entirely get away without doing
> in-person meetings, I do agree with you that we can do better at doing
> remote meetings.   Perhaps we should let this unfortunate event drive us to
> make the attempt.
>
> If we were to attempt such a thing, how do you think it would work?
>

We'd need tighter chairing. We'd need microphone floor control, and
queues and reservations and we'd adopt meeting formalisms to get the
poll of the room.

Consensus hums would be next to impossible. We'd find pressure to head
to votes. Which of course is a huge no-go for a lot of people.

Van Jacobsen talked to me 15+ years ago about the ways you might have
to police the MBONE and it was interesting to think he was looking
forward then to large attendee, widely distributed, delay-bound
interactions online which is where we're kind-of heading.

The RIR have been doing break-out meetings for a while, and training
the chairs to respect a 30 second lag for feedback from the room is
very hard. Chairs like to judge consensus with eyes in the room, not
on the screen.

-G