1000 person virtual meeting (Was: Re: Concerns about Singapore)

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Mon, 11 April 2016 22:47 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 6D81F12E93A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 15:47:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.297
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.297 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 zHad3_QF3M2p for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 15:47:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50EEC12DBB3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 15:47:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B09EBE2D; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 23:47:36 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jgcgvFwpulGL; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 23:47:35 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.87.49.100] (unknown [86.46.23.241]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9C6C7BE25; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 23:47:34 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1460414855; bh=geYKxzaut4DHZy+H0t1jTZRPVC0YpiNmenKkN1WzTII=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=j2jn78JAlxjcPsaH1eVae9HTrSAjDg+ATapK+T7PWuBIfIAuJRLtQrOFoddF2vv1I 6CLJmCyV4//zk/8KDAFqma02zVH2WWzaVNfSwEZBHjIaMhILE7Gh4BrByhYD1aAmhx zL3/6xaGIWjwF196o8/ejAE/sCn7Jkw9fJmA+wD8=
Subject: 1000 person virtual meeting (Was: Re: Concerns about Singapore)
To: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>, ietf@ietf.org
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>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <570C2985.9030701@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 23:47:33 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160411223403.GA6743@gsp.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms000304060308080808060609"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/_YkqpNcsT9byupTfn8s4ymI7gNE>
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: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 22:47:40 -0000

Hiya,

On 11/04/16 23:34, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> 
> What I'm hearing is a lot of we've-always-done-it-this-way.  Well,
> that's not working very well except for the privileged elite few
> (most of whom are backed by corporations).  And I understand
> that those with plenty of money and time and freedom have gotten
> comfortable with how-things-are-done.  It's an easy thing to do,
> I've done it myself.   But it doesn't serve the long-term interests
> of the IETF or the Internet well.

FWIW, I think you're getting a few years ahead of reality
there, but eventually reality will catch up with you. I'm
not sure when I'd predict may happen, maybe in the next
5-10 years would be my current guess.

But maybe I'm wrong - can you send details of how an approx.
1000 person virtual meeting where everyone could provide real
input has been held by anyone? I'm unaware of such but I'd
be very interested if that had happened already.

Even if we're only in the realms of speculation, that could
still be useful speculation, so I'd encourage you to write
down your ideas as to how that could work, in an I-D. (Or
however you prefer to document stuff.)

And of course, that "that" that has to work need not involve
simultaneous participation by 1000 people from all over the
world within any one or a few hours. However, it does need
to involve that large a set with some practical method for
cross-pollination and for people to establish working
personal relationships with one another.

In summary, I do think we'll get figure out ways to cut out
most of the travel in future, but I figure we're just not
there yet, and I don't see how we establish the interpersonal
relationships if we do end up with a purist non-travel scenario.
But that said, I do agree that our current expensive-travel
approach definitely does favour the well financially endowed,
which currently includes me (surprisingly, to me;-)

Cheers,
S.