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

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

All,

On 2016-04-12 19:08, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 07:01:16PM -0400, [e-mail] wrote:
>> Why would we want to get rid of such a rich source of inspiration and
>> invention?
>
> Because it works exclusively for the elite, privileged few.  (And no
> doubt: it works quite well.)  But it's the antithesis of inclusion
> and diversity -- and I think those qualities are increasingly necessary.

I don't think we should entertain ideas about *replace* f-2-f meetings.

I think we could entertain ideas about IETF wide remote meetings, but
don't think that such meetings should be modeled after the f-2-f
meetings.

For example we should take the opportunity to get rid of all colliding
meetings, i.e. run just meeting (wg or other) at the time.

Let us say that we set aside enough time about half way between two IETF
meetings and schedule all the meetings, as requested by wg chairs or
people in charge of other meetings, as a long series.

Let us assume that the wg meetings is on average 1.5 hours, scheduling
100 wg meetings would require 150 hours.

/Loa

>
> ---rsk
>