about remote attendance and hallway discussions

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 13 February 2015 17:52 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 670F41A005F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:52:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 2WRLSNYQbO4v for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:52:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A94EA1A0046 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:52:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A257203C8; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 13:00:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 8FBD363A21; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 12:52:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A488637F4; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 12:52:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Mary Barnes <mary.h.barnes@gmail.com>
Subject: about remote attendance and hallway discussions
In-Reply-To: <CABmDk8=SummseWzrgFXZvpwNwMTW8XzwVfPYuVoVSF_5YumF6g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL0qLwZk=k-CWLte_ChK9f1kzLwMOTRyi7AwFa8fLjBsextBcA@mail.gmail.com> <9772.1420830216@sandelman.ca> <CAL0qLwZatYW2e4Wk6GXB2U26fsCn8BV2qt-07kHBugiq34zrcQ@mail.gmail.com> <6025.1423672358@sandelman.ca> <CAL0qLwYtE618sA99hgXP-5wk+BYdcXLbiZqd_36OreYQ1LB7hQ@mail.gmail.com> <732CCD31-0F13-472F-9825-C5F5D650C41B@vigilsec.com> <2457EE06-4960-40B5-AF10-2EDFBF18B2B6@nominum.com> <7C601AA4-55C4-43FE-B2FE-1D22BD73F166@vigilsec.com> <54DDAEF2.7020105@gmail.com> <CAKHUCzwbCPqmNM7HbyMdSU2eGnr+Y7yjupo=F1nidcK=Et0rFg@mail.gmail.com> <5E02430D-4D68-4F44-901D-0EBA55F32F00@nominum.com> <CABmDk8=SummseWzrgFXZvpwNwMTW8XzwVfPYuVoVSF_5YumF6g@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 12:52:48 -0500
Message-ID: <21860.1423849968@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/VD6n7yYkhSgV42CM9FLyBtS3RCM>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 17:52:53 -0000

Mary Barnes <mary.h.barnes@gmail.com> wrote:
    > or two of the face to face meetings for the WG.  I would posit that
    > these meetings can be equally as effective as face to face meetings in
    > making progress. Once we started those meetings, we didn't find that we
    > needed f2f interim meetings.  There of course, the timezone issue with
    > these sorts of meetings, but that can be managed.  But, we do have all
    > the tools to make work between meetings more effective and more open to
    > remote participants that I don't think we're taking advantage of.

For the remote participant, the most important thing that the physical
meeting does it to establish a time zone, and force everyone else to conform
to that.  Additionally, by removing people from their office, it removes a
whole host of "distractions": bosses, spouses, kids, commutes,...

One of the things that I think we could try is to have a meeting with dozens
to hundreds of locations. 

It would still be 5 days long.
It would have a primary location in order to establish a time zone for it. 
It would have a schedule, and agenda and conflict resolution.
It's just that I would go stay in a nearby hotel and/or conference center,
and I'd have to have lunch or do social events with nearby people.
It would an experiment.

The hardest thing for me, when attending remotely, is convincing my kid (who
wakes up at 5am regularly), is that I'm "at work" at that time, and that
when it's time for me to sleep (in remote time zone), that I really do need
to sleep.


-- 
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-