Re: [Manycouches] Meet Only line - I object

Alissa Cooper <> Thu, 04 February 2021 18:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 786453A170A; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 10:45:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.119
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.119 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=j56rZiS7; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=o7LWTg15
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2fsmj282mdqs; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 10:45:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFCF73A0C37; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 10:45:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80F845C006C; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 13:45:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 04 Feb 2021 13:45:19 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :reply-to:message-id:references:to; s=fm2; bh=VL9iA3PY9iWJCIwKra cHcV6k0f0kfzSxTM8fQW2DP78=; b=j56rZiS7WaWKo84U8kxodRxSaGpbEx8xWR OjlhoH7CEXxLF1tZr6to6R1JcRJUK534fje7WtDk9LK7TW7ZyX09Yeablv5piQgD 09oNuGLG0NpDltM/cMspQsSQBHa//TKn2VCdFNCpduu78WY4af44L4T+mM0Gow7w dcIUgs52BN97i3ofM8aOIph5TT/+1h9PwWJEsw8mLB6KnUhZt4pExF7XcTw/XgMQ /YdMQk5usmIp1gdASD86oGfIZJiIw9QX/N+5fyOB3BOnvD9qhZDWunV4ic4pfClc ULiaSXaBdkawhm9LI+phYh2u/zH+9MJpgj4u1IwlM61sMoAxMASw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:to :x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm2; bh=VL9iA3PY9iWJCIwKracHcV6k0f0kfzSxTM8fQW2DP78=; b=o7LWTg15 IC9S7gnXdIwlPeNJnEq1zqeSzprTXGBYhA47HgAkChAeQjHSpgT/xCUiDD4mqJrW cQWcoi8YdNMv7RtkzuS8MCUiTkjKC00VsvxT1L3S7yFuRKyQDcT6vIhWyLksuyft XymJm+/TIpupc5cXHHGREun7tyJkcZo5f1ADQg9P0vO2jBF4uK19/61ZU2PB52yJ gSGoT+T8Kb671WEpXWPo5aBQkU6ABrL0kVqpP+rC4c7F0TjeTdNPqqt7NpqrJS2J lanJ4hUdiH9/tRxdvHJNoEL3UrLQT+zwR5E7Ln7pXisEtANJTj5NvSi2knsnuFVP IEGq3x5LBSKS3Q==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:vkAcYB7Ludrft69H1yS8i59Csgdgj08rTlEY0d2K-gN07a4n0KX7ZQ> <xme:vkAcYO6LNpkh6I34jo95zVkxAhSFS4ed3s5opd6sQclFIVogv5iminDhn9laIVmhk MpbDemUJNbIUukeFQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrgeeggddutdelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurheptggguffhjgffrhfkfhfvofesrgdtmherhhdtjeenucfhrhhomheptehlihhs shgrucevohhophgvrhcuoegrlhhishhsrgestghoohhpvghrfidrihhnqeenucggtffrrg htthgvrhhnpedvvdeileduueefudevleelgfduteefveeguddvjeehleeuiedvtdehteeh teduueenucfkphepudejfedrfeekrdduudejrdejudenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpe dtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegrlhhishhsrgestghoohhpvghrfidrihhn
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:vkAcYIfAuZjR9Zzk2y5138vogNSt4I6b6B8YcRc-0mPk12Vhke2BvQ> <xmx:vkAcYKKvZ720UNNbShMttl3ojyukPNyP8xJ5aMcNkfv7EGTXgbHo2g> <xmx:vkAcYFIYjW5cTHDXMU2L_Y_s555xJG3VNkaiwdWZrJymcxyQSkGewQ> <xmx:v0AcYDhNNOwQbVh730TqMWJRMwy0w-Z2hR2lnz2xdC6G0AggIiN-Vg>
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 724731080059; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 13:45:18 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_06FDBDA9-7565-483B-99A5-6C40D6C465B4"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
Subject: Re: [Manycouches] Meet Only line - I object
From: Alissa Cooper <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2021 13:45:17 -0500
Cc: Michael StJohns <>, IETF <>,
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Kathleen Moriarty <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2021 18:45:22 -0000

Hi all,

Please use the <> list for this discussion. It was created for discussion of remote attendance and virtual meetings, in addition to serving as the SHMOO working group list.


> On Feb 4, 2021, at 7:26 AM, Kathleen Moriarty <> wrote:
> Hi,
> Barbara noted a decline in productivity and I’m just responding to that point.  I don’t see it as being connected necessarily to a lack of face-to-face.  I teach 2 MS level courses online and have for well over a year, successfully completing 3 semesters before the pandemic.  There has been a notable decline in productivity and quality of work, with last semester being the worst.  
> People with children have far less time than they did previously. Even if kids are in person, the days in person are shorter. Many, like me, don’t have time to exercise either and that results in some productivity declines.  Many dropped out of the workforce, mainly women, to help with remote days or all remote for their kids.
> Many work places also became more intense and with fear of losing jobs, many put more time into day jobs as well. 
> Productivity should not be the reason to justify in person as we don’t have a good measure to compare considering current stresses on families and thus participants.
> Best regards,
> Kathleen 
> Sent from my mobile device
>> On Feb 3, 2021, at 6:40 PM, Michael StJohns <> wrote:
>> On 2/3/2021 4:28 PM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
>>> I'd like to see more online and not have 3 in-person meetings a year. The lower costs may make it more accessible to some who cannot afford to travel.  It is also more equitable if everyone is remote for at least some of the meetings.  One time a year in person might be fine and I think we can figure that out.  This may also help primary caretakers of children or parents.  I know that has been a barrier expressed int he past from parents of young children.
>> Hi Kathleen -
>> I sort of get this, but that means the dynamic is a bit different, because you're not necessarily meeting with everyone you might want to meet with, just the ones on a schedule compatible with yours.
>> I think that we've moved the WG schedules over to virtual interims with a will and I don't think that's going to go back to where it was.  It's possible that we can shorten the IETF week, or provide more activities that benefit from having people in the same place for a period of time and narrow down the WG time.  I myself continue to come primarily for the hallway conversations and I find having those about 3 times a year to keep the connections going is Mama Bear - just right.  :-)   I do pay attention to some WGs and find that sitting down with an appropriate adult beverage with folks I'm having discussion disconnects with to be extremely helpful in resolving issues or just getting on the same page.  Virtualizing will probably not work.
>> One thing I've noticed from the last few meetings is that being home I have a lack of desire to extend my time on line past specific scheduled activities (WGs, plenary) and I think I've seen that in others.  Things like Gather have helped a little but there's a real loss of useful random interaction in our current models.
>> Not having had custodial duties for parents or children I have no real comment there.  I believe the IETF is now (planning on?) providing some child care in situ, but I do understand that nothing the IETF can do will completely mitigate those barriers.
>> Later, Mike