Re: Concerns about Singapore

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 12 April 2016 00:51 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 3D5BE12D899 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:51:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=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=fugue-com.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 F6tful1yy12S for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:50:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x22f.google.com (mail-lf0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22f]) (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 394AA12D895 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:50:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id c126so3639352lfb.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:50:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=H5U4f6akbU8dnvmP3nG/wj4NkUqmnxbozz+tnZ8p5uY=; b=VJRY71erDw67sACnGqn2nOKMmZ2fyos0NUqpah1s3GsYkqRdB7AHUgkrCaPouLYKbf ikXVN+SOGpWc46alG8jOb1UuE3+Zge7Hyl3/Jg3tz3ScqkyrxDsypaRHzOsRLtDPmN70 kYRbMpgKrYSAzGhvcgiZGEnWjF6siI2tfPL8e4fRMnNs+BoT+iIkwert1+xMowfvCDB/ IwxZPM2Jlp0MfRqHovZtElR74f5H2Wbp1xD21Yi2zbuhsQ8ID2PSAIZ1xyS7CetAU97b VTOFeQWlBeEuyU+RRXydd+mTiomlgCVS96Qa4Pb99vIcMFtjZvcneCv4afxp4vjXx/L4 HUBg==
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:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=H5U4f6akbU8dnvmP3nG/wj4NkUqmnxbozz+tnZ8p5uY=; b=LGguJ9STr9ArlrBo3azul9vvvcCw90tVZecQoOUI9E6r2jjDqByJQLe5/uu4RxEUxj fRFsVg7xg9W+QrHAmOcgP6tAWJ7/v5Ui1q1+7i3UwfKDUQe1uT7budZW4fjVCAUTJTVj sVl15lWjc7l+iv8zpMRe98jazqH51jiqiyK2kvbG88oLkvrwMtE2BUX7SvH9y8fHYVA4 sHvGOMFW4w25s49mnmfKXYc0+bH1cQsQA1OBqPVntTOTXWsA9VEYBo+9cyTlXTdWckeF OoIkVi1zqrOS8QB1hwHgLc/+0E2fTo2rig+ekS5ZC1S/qFcsGfr5BnrbLXVzen46uGxZ KlTg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXFl/QRDdA7HkTlHr/o8OIh+daHR9ghbR/CZ/l+He6MRiOZeoaV7epLH28GjTGnioUKi5lcFQU8ltA8qw==
X-Received: by 10.25.148.208 with SMTP id w199mr161358lfd.124.1460422256421; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:50:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.40.136 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:50:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [71.233.41.235]
In-Reply-To: <CAKr6gn1KmNcgNwbPHZWB2aJQAuchz4eB7gxJhV2Dsbc1Z50kDw@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> <CAKr6gn1KmNcgNwbPHZWB2aJQAuchz4eB7gxJhV2Dsbc1Z50kDw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:50:16 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1mWjg_-525avYJ4PnSECYQrtpVFJCXPfH=PryJ8q0vy4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Concerns about Singapore
To: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140234cd1049305303f0d24
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Ui35FBJFm7kD5VvSV7Z6L0kLa9E>
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 00:51:00 -0000

The only thing you mentioned that can't be done with existing conferencing
software is hums, and I'm sure we could figure out a way to make that
work.  It's not rocket science.   Chairs who judge consensus by looking at
the room aren't following IETF process--consensus is judged on the mailing
list.  Hums are useful for figuring out why we _don't_ have consensus, and
for _getting_ to consensus, but if you were to judge consensus by hums or a
show of hands, then you'd be taking a vote, wouldn't you?

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 8:18 PM, George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org> wrote:

> 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
>