Re: Virtual IETFs (was: Re: Concerns about Singapore)

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

The problem with a larger virtual interim is that it doesn't replace an
IETF, and so you're adding workload but not subtracting any workload.   I
don't see the point in that.

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Tim Chown <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 12 Apr 2016, at 12:49, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> 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? ;)
>
> Tim
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Tim Chown <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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?
>>
>>
>
>