Re: Further update on COVID-19 (Coronavirus) and IETF 107 Vancouver

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Just to provide my view on one of Donald's numbers ...

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 1:30 PM Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I believe that a reasonable number of face-to-face meetings per year
> is essential to much of the progress made in the IETF. Remote
> participation tools do not work nearly as well as face-to-face
> meetings even for WG meetings and the like and are pretty hopeless for
> hallway meetings and most of the spontaneous or planned on the spot
> side meetings. The deadlines for a face-to-face meeting act as a
> useful forcing function to get drafts posted and the like.
>
> The optimum number of meetings per year is an interesting question.
> Over a considerable range, I believe the more meetings the more
> progress and the greater the likelihood of achieving schedules but
> also the higher the expense which acts as a restriction on
> participation. The fewer meetings, the cheaper/easier participation is
> but the more things tend to draft. Here are how many ~1 week meetings
> per year some standards organizations have that I happen to know
> about:
>
>     3GPP   8 meetings
>

One of my new responsibilities is participating in 3GPP meetings, and this
number is very dependent on what you're doing.

SA2 (Requirements) is scheduled for about 8 week-long face-to-face meetings
per year, but (for example) if you also attend the CT and SA plenary
meetings, that's another 4 week-long face-to-face meetings.

12 week-long face-to-face meetings is pretty close to the upper limit for
how much time you CAN spend in 3GPP week-long face-to-face meetings,
because I'd be going to more week-long face-to-face meetings except that
they collide with other week-long face-to-face meetings (if I wasn't going
to be at IETF 109, I have my choice of either SA2 or CT4 that collide with
each other, AND with IETF 109).


>     IEEE 802 WGs   6 meetings
>     Broadband Forum   4 meetings
>     IETF   3 meetings
>
> So, I think the IETF's 3 meetings a year is pretty close to optimal
> for the IETF.
>

Agreed, and 3 meetings per year is about half to a third of the load for
lots of other SDOs. I didn't know how good I had it, just doing IETF stuff
...

None of this is intended to minimize the importance of improving our
ability to meet, either in person, remotely, or virtually, and none of this
is intended to ignore the challenges various people have to deal with in
order to attend any of our meetings. I just wanted to emphasize Donald's
point a bit.

Spencer


> Thanks,
> Donald
> ===============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
>  2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
>  [e-mail]
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 5:01 AM Vittorio Bertola
> <vittorio.bertola=[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Il 27/02/2020 08:33 Roni Even (A) <[e-mail]> ha scritto:
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I participated in tsvwg virtual meeting last week that had about 30
> participants using IETF webex.. If this is a demonstration of holding a
> virtual meeting in my view we are not ready. I kept losing the audio of the
> meeting and I was not alone, others complained in the chat window. The
> suggestion  was to use a PSTN connection to the meeting and not the IP one.
> This mean that I will have to pay for international call since there was no
> local free call in number.  Note that it was an audio only plus data, no
> video.
> >
> > As ICANN (who has decided to go fully online) is discovering, even if
> you solved the infrastructural problem (which they apparently plan to solve
> by using Zoom), there are many problems in running a purely virtual
> meeting, in addition to the basic ones of missing all the informal
> interaction, which is usually key to getting the hardest issues solved, and
> of crippling the emotional and non-verbal communication, which leads much
> more easily to confrontation.
> >
> > For example, the timezone problem: no matter which timezone you are in,
> there will be people for which the meeting will be out of working hours,
> often during the night. While your employer and your family will accept to
> "lose" you for a week if you go physically elsewhere, it is much harder to
> get that accepted if you are home - they will easily still expect you to be
> available during the day at least for important stuff. As a minimum, your
> attention will be partly diverted and your physical state will be hampered,
> and as a maximum, you will miss good chunks of the meeting. In some cases,
> working at night would even be incompatible with local labour laws.
> >
> > Or the connectivity problem: possibly this is stronger for ICANN, which
> has a significant share of participants from parts of the world where
> connectivity is worse, but not everyone has broadband connectivity readily
> available; actually, many African participants told ICANN that they do not
> have any connectivity at home, and they only connect from an office which
> will be closed during the daytime of the timezone of the meeting. And if
> they have connectivity, e.g. through mobile networks, it's often
> prohibitively expensive for day-long connections. Actually, if you end up
> having to use good old telephone calls, it will often be prohibitively
> expensive even in the "developed" world; and while travel is even more
> expensive, funding for travel is often available in ways that funding for
> (personal) connectivity is not.
> >
> > More generally, people with worse connectivity will have harder times in
> understanding others (especially if English is not their mother tongue),
> being given the floor, making their points, gaining support for them etc
> (though some careful chairmanship could partly address this).
> >
> > I'm not saying that these problems cannot be addressed, but it's
> important to consider them; it's false that meeting online always increases
> opportunities for participation, it just creates a different set of
> problems and of disadvantaged people.
> >
> > P.S. Now for the less topical part - sorry but I have to say this:
> >
> > > Il 26/02/2020 02:00 Casey Farrell <[e-mail]> ha
> scritto:
> > >
> > >
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/san-franciscos-mayor-declared-state-225239441.html
> >
> > It's nice to see that politicians overreacting and spreading panic
> globally just to show their local voters that they "do something about it"
> are not a prerogative of Italy only!
> >
> > --
> >
> > Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
> > [e-mail]
> > Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy
>
>