Virtual IETFs (was: Re: Concerns about Singapore)

Tim Chown <> Tue, 12 April 2016 12:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE18812EC31 for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 05:30:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.516
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lcpBjAFKQWJR for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 05:30:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F11412D1E0 for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 05:30:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u3CCUhoJ025596; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:30:43 +0100
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 u3CCUhoJ025596
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple;; s=201304; t=1460464243; bh=6T2VawsHlIqXJiVBJFpKS5Ojlis=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=WgYYsdZ5JHaAQyqdGVyKFJ2NOn+1XAA6iWO4t23ZCHvA1g7lVO1HTjy1t9ZX5Wzwb /EvyAQG9nCZclwS6jaEHb9vAQ2lTX9whMqN2vYfTROqfEaSM4ictnt6C0RjcDnL5dw a5aGSe/sN+sEWjkuYVLOsbZd3ARl3ybYFCt31WXQ=
Received: from ([2001:630:d0:f102:250:56ff:fea0:401]) by ( [2001:630:d0:f102:250:56ff:fea0:68da]) envelope-from <> with ESMTP (valid=N/A) id s3BDUh3219206748Xe ret-id none; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:30:43 +0100
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u3CCUbf2013207 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:30:38 +0100
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_565F6DB7-8EEF-44A1-8594-BFED5BBA8953"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
Subject: Virtual IETFs (was: Re: Concerns about Singapore)
From: Tim Chown <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:30:37 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|bbf82c39a7afc0305d21ff1c5582540bs3BDUh03tjc||>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <EMEW3|9aaa87920b361e2e71efe9c7005e927cs3BChQ03tjc||> <> <>
To: Ted Lemon <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=s3BDUh321920674800; tid=s3BDUh3219206748Xe; client=relay,forged,no_ptr,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=2:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: u3CCUhoJ025596
Archived-At: <>
Cc: ietf <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:30:48 -0000

> On 12 Apr 2016, at 12:49, Ted Lemon <> wrote:
> Agree about Buenos Aires.   We already do excellent virtual interims--I think if your standard for whether we can do a virtual IETF is that virtual interims work, we are already there.
> I think that if we want to test this idea, what we need to do is designate some future IETF virtual _now_, and then start preparing, rather than say "oh, we should do a virtual" and then dither about when we might be ready.   We will never be so ready that a virtual IETF feels identical to an in-person IETF, so let's just abandon that idea and get started on making a virtual IETF that, while different, is still a success.

Sounds interesting, if something of a big leap to attempt. Is a larger wholly virtual, multiple WG interim meeting a next step then?

Btw where do we get the virtual T-shirt? ;)


> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Tim Chown < <>> wrote:
> Hi,
> To minimise the chances of a ‘Singapore’ happening again it would seem prudent to
> a) re-use previous successful meeting venues for the bulk of our meetings (say, every 5 in 6 meetings); this is one criteria for meeting selection as it stands anyway; that list might include venues like Prague, Berlin, Vancouver, etc.; we’d need to be clear in what ‘successful’ means - the meeting feedback forms provide one such mechanism;
> b) be transparent at an early stage about where new venues might be, whether by country or city, so there is a fair chance for people to give feedback; of course, how such feedback is weighed is an open question, but at least it would be there, and the IAOC can then make a decision ‘eyes wide open’.
> In such a system, Buenos Aires would have been a ‘1 in 6’ venue. In that light, I’d note that many people have said how much they enjoyed Buenos Aires as a meeting place. And while the IAOC probably feel rather down over the comments about Singapore, they should be praised for going out on something of a limb in making the Buenos Aires selection. (And I’d add that the enthusiasm and helpfulness of the LACNIC hosts was also fantastic.)
> In terms of virtual meetings, I’d suggest we try to hold more interim WG meetings, some completely virtually, and learn how to make those better. If we can regularly hold good quality wholly virtual interim meetings, then we can consider whether the same technology might be used for a larger meeting.
> Tim
> > On 12 Apr 2016, at 00:54, Ted Lemon < <>> 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?