IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective

Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> Thu, 09 June 2016 19:41 UTC

Return-Path: <melinda.shore@gmail.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 9B21612D993 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 12:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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=gmail.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 r-MlIXzg_8Im for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 12:41:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x232.google.com (mail-pf0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::232]) (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 4BED012D992 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 12:41:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x232.google.com with SMTP id t190so15774076pfb.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 09 Jun 2016 12:41:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=BhDBcAGbcSVueaMi2BM+EyilFcBqxHmcHvzLQQAlOQU=; b=Gzc2D+Mxt3/GKrjPHurdj8RScbnFbmtTolwMHdoXnbu6XlcU5tCgfDEAXOuCZW9BD9 xqHZlp7nb2Cb7p1A0n7CzTUoZYBAX7IXniqxgMOMhbmyhvn+vOhi/YAHlp7JKwGsSnRa U2Ev7xQKzf9kjlvZ0O7YoxuinErEww4IDl0J5jHTrbKOGd6nQ/drdzfPWBrVw7AeaPul a5BU3gPoWqR1THKncKHs/FbzfHMPaknJSRcLBuskcr7VYI/skOYRS2YaEZ87CNBeZc3h yj8YOsS5r2q9zCHo5Wp5ykCY7/UbHM/2g4QyRxxJIi7PpoGP37n5UyRPKrdFUhZeY6W6 9Qeg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=BhDBcAGbcSVueaMi2BM+EyilFcBqxHmcHvzLQQAlOQU=; b=SuUzEPcDCi1sBfMsLWPxS2g6+nusowTVQYfDk1ulaJ5zfSdXY7bMmDv201O8iCDium 8UmMeHEyd+jrQep8PhlczAek0Z/0G4+BSSJuZWtseT3FHHAqSiVtbHtD0BZ0XpA77Lpv D/7J6aa9Qv12WGjWt8kEMnMlYm83Xy5LqFnEMgv1BBVGtNFfH764d/KPKxuPAG08sUDd 12qsRXREvNmFeGuaBDMSJEIzYNHqvqSBVY+IqbnmdGohJhGJV3jzUymrRVKA23ztFTZW 4oHPPy2FC7aKJSfhDA15doVpqSRcJ+bI/fk/00OM7NocUlIhXm0Bo7zvWP8eu4v81u6k MmrA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKkBGzYlKymwkgF+8TCpEkJqinq3auSocfcasc6FAIhtZeOb1xHqdc7qQBslhmXPw==
X-Received: by 10.98.43.210 with SMTP id r201mr6272898pfr.9.1465501286891; Thu, 09 Jun 2016 12:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Melindas-MacBook-Pro.local (66-230-108-1-radius.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [66.230.108.1]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id 129sm12029634pfe.3.2016.06.09.12.41.25 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 09 Jun 2016 12:41:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, ietf@ietf.org
References: <20160608135632.20063.81792.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <256CE0D6-1A2A-459A-9800-FAF1960EDD09@consulintel.es> <D6E8D8D5-EB54-412C-9620-A8A3B2EC674B@gmail.com> <CAC8QAcewGyG3hTy4vPzuu69mznXOC-gMrODQefUqscqfwKwKTg@mail.gmail.com> <82901186-58D0-4C71-9562-57F90DFCE0CF@gmail.com> <CAC8QAcfia-boXPGGa-8ioh-Tcg4pdEnuH2C+=e7swE2g1c2ZTg@mail.gmail.com> <cd3058b4-28f7-59d2-1596-cdf8c6ea359e@gmail.com> <9ebfd327-9faf-dc0b-914f-138a2be4908f@cisco.com>
From: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e0176933-d6c4-1af4-8798-689334675eae@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 11:41:23 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9ebfd327-9faf-dc0b-914f-138a2be4908f@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/SwvaQTucx8FGAQtHv4TXYsrd7AE>
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: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 19:41:29 -0000

On 6/9/16 11:31 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> I don't think it was more expensive than any meeting that would have
> occurred in Asia.

Possibly, but with meetings as expensive as they are I need
to skip the occasional meeting, and it's going to tend to be
the most expensive one in a given time frame.  Not sure about
Seoul, to be honest.  I am not going to go to Singapore,
regardless.

I'd like to see us reduce the number of plenary meetings
(and reduce our reliance on meetings more generally) but I
can't see requiring virtual interims.  If work is chugging
along without meetings and everybody feels they're being
heard, that strikes me as an ideal situation and one that
doesn't require a meeting at all.

Melinda

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email