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

Ted Lemon <> Tue, 12 April 2016 13:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2794D12EE63 for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 06:23:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OytqKrPmh79t for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 06:23:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF28612EE54 for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 06:23:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id g184so24876048lfb.3 for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 06:23:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=bqnmIO6t1xbAy5LbfSq9EU8RFye/r+Ba3YF5d5AVDUc=; b=dOBJqx2UNosGhkUTK1huNE8GVDZMBXzPtsS/29SVr3Uc/VSB3zuUKzovopAtpZeiTM V5YkYO9guWe1/BmiTuwLDrCgkd717ve5t+hocT2NbWIBFbd6jnweMnM45NjmWfWHvhXb UvXysMWYiuqc0Czps/41gE2c1FGhhWV/yXQQimHEWZ+95P/WEjC6VE9yQpkXhccz3Ek5 xZqrGd4Xtg32iMLMcbS+9UgXpCUDw7/ZDFm9uSDaqVoIkTf2TQK8rE0Z4xsdYuLpPcwN 8NET7y+DPn5PrU9PtlW9Hi3kSbZgFeui+Pjc3wgxehJF1iKIPyy1etGDWmAbvBYRCaBj EFzA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=bqnmIO6t1xbAy5LbfSq9EU8RFye/r+Ba3YF5d5AVDUc=; b=DWYx2MHS6rQhhcXzHVJ/LQgijJkpJRWTk8K9QVTDOagSe+qvPY5cxxrpYMSROGPIaa uIs8yN5Q9fS7W8ZaVsUh3y+Su53+qHiK9uEDTOiyV0kEKOVDDajyPHD9m0JRJaqTAKzj kwc6RBmZ0TRYX0GtwIL2aaDb3huAgXeHJgL3VXmE92ciQnEJGpfilUMLfbd/KoUFuZob m17LoK6ACYUMORdWF5OKrBd4WnKN15qMFYXiBlY0bn3YKLfDQIwxukX1+kJJH4i0j4Yc F8xWCKW8v4HVyJHwWLrXJtYFw2V+EnhPC5F6eocFjcZ8n4EBVB6gnDs9nArF7G9x1CEz 3epw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FUVDAg1C9MJJlAzRaiGjD5dm6GiT0M3kDtToZzDcZZBKqEYX/2Q6s11shT3/iice5JMtOFaLNt39bFV9A==
X-Received: by with SMTP id sb8mr1352376lbb.83.1460467414773; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 06:23:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 06:22:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: []
In-Reply-To: <EMEW3|bbf82c39a7afc0305d21ff1c5582540bs3BDUh03tjc||>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <EMEW3|9aaa87920b361e2e71efe9c7005e927cs3BChQ03tjc||> <> <> <EMEW3|bbf82c39a7afc0305d21ff1c5582540bs3BDUh03tjc||>
From: Ted Lemon <>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:22:54 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Virtual IETFs (was: Re: Concerns about Singapore)
To: Tim Chown <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e011832ba76c4d80530499151
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 13:23:39 -0000

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 <> wrote:

> 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? ;)
> Tim
> 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?