Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities

Michael Richardson <> Wed, 26 April 2017 14:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C32B612EB07 for <>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:07:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PffzG8fu9EtD for <>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:07:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:7e00::f03c:91ff:feae:de77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBF6F129C27 for <>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:05:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2604:8800:100:1a::2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E53DD1F8EE for <>; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 14:04:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 179) id D8CC358A; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 10:04:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
Subject: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities
In-reply-to: <>
References: <> <> <20170411232408.GE48535@verdi> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Comments: In-reply-to Toerless Eckert <> message dated "Tue, 18 Apr 2017 23:22:54 +0200."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 10:04:57 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 14:07:51 -0000

Toerless Eckert <> wrote:
    > For example, there is a lot of death by powerpoint in meetings that
    > pushes off high bandwidth discussions ("oh, we're out of time"). AFAIK,
    > most active work on drafts during IETF meeting week happens outside of

I am among those who pushes back on death by powerpoint, so I agree with you
strongly.  Presentations are very easily supported through completely remote
attendance.  Concurrent jabber back-channel discussion among the participants
can often bring out points that are sometimes lost in the foreground presentation.

{Maybe we should dispense with the meeting rooms, just wire the hotel rooms
for GbE, and all be on-site, but "remote".  Then the critical criteria for
which city to meet in is reduced to where the best beer can be had.  (And so
Prague wins?)}

But, on somewhat more serious note [note lack of :-) above], I have been told
the following features about the deathly powerpoints:
  1) provides a record of thoughts for later on.
  2) permits non-english speakers to understand what is being said by
     other non-english speakers!!!
  3) can be pushed through google-translate.
  4) can be read ahead of time by chairs and participants so that they
     can ask intelligent questions, and/or can allocate appropriate amounts
     of time.

Michael Richardson <>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-