Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Singapore]

Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> Tue, 12 April 2016 17:42 UTC

Return-Path: <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
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 D791512D7B2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:42:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 B_IJSOYsWa1t for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:42:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net (server1.neighborhoods.net [207.154.13.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99FBB12B041 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:42:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C23994C8007 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:42:05 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.6.2 (20081215) (Debian) at neighborhoods.net
Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (server1.neighborhoods.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id FlPpecnIbsQf for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:42:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from Miless-MBP.fios-router.home (pool-108-26-191-201.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [108.26.191.201]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 56C9F4C8006 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:42:00 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Singapore]
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <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> <87twj7eon7.fsf@tops.chopps.org> <20160412110839.GA20488@gsp.org> <8760vn82f2.fsf@tops.chopps.org> <20160412124639.GA27223@gsp.org> <87fuurgd8f.fsf@tops.chopps.org> <CABmDk8kCfTB_AKyqV4X+AghL2G7i+XcKR=tzV0jybM05k+UU4Q@mail.gmail.com> <570D175A.1040001@joelhalpern.com> <CAPt1N1n0_UJ5AVzO=dyvzeLtYi0b8g5894wyhctwPwqTzme-PQ@mail.gmail.com> <570D1F04.8050701@joelhalpern.com> <DM2PR09MB033614EDE92B2458163F0FB4B9950@DM2PR09MB0336.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
From: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
Message-ID: <570D3367.4040705@meetinghouse.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:41:59 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR09MB033614EDE92B2458163F0FB4B9950@DM2PR09MB0336.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/cQVMxJQG3XANqV-X6LDmqAV3MIU>
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 17:42:07 -0000


On 4/12/16 1:33 PM, Theodore V Faber wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On 4/12/16 09:15, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> Ted, you missed my point.  Yes, I can arrange a call with the
>> relevant people.  And I frequently do. It is harder, but that would
>> be acceptable.
>>
>> The important part is that such calls are MUCH less effective than
>>   face-to-face discussions.  There are lots of well-known reasons
>> for this.
>>
>> And no, inc ase it was not obvious, without the face-to-face
>> meeting, there is no way to arrange such face-to-face meetings.
> If the goal of the IETF is to replicate the experience of an IETF
> meeting using telepresence tools, that is an impossible task.
> Telepresence is not being present.
>
> To my mind, the question is if a large scale use of telepresence tools
> can create a working environment that the IETF membership can use to
> advance the IETF's goals.  I'm curious enough about that question to
> support an assessment of how expensive and difficult it would be to
> replace one IETF meeting with a large scale telepresence experiment.
>
> I think we should evaluate that experiment (should it occur) based on
> whether or not the broader goals advance (standards and documents
> advance, new ideas are sparked, the membership is appropriately
> updated), not how they are advanced (discussions at the Scotch BOF,
> plenary and BA, speaking at the mic in WG meetings).
>
> I seems to me that a successful experiment would mean that we use more
> large scale telepresence.  It may someday turn out that such events
> replace some IETF meetings; it may not.  I don't know of any
> organizations of the scale of the IETF that have historically relied
> on face to face meetings and transitioned solely to large scale
> telepresence, so my expectation is that IETF meetings will continue.
>
> (Just to forestall the question: Anonymous seems to run entirely on
> large scale telepresence (for some definition thereof).  It's got a
> whole set of procedures and traditions that enable that.  It's a
> fascinating situation, but I see little inspiration or intuition for
> changing IETF procedures from it.)
>

I would think that a major open source project might be more of an 
example - perhaps Debian?

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.  .... Yogi Berra