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

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Tue, 12 April 2016 12:49 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
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 4C65312ECF0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 05:49:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996] 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 3Nw7yapDaO6U for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 05:49:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7299C12E59B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 05:49:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.2] (unknown [122.53.41.246]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 674D31802C3A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 14:49:41 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Singapore]
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <m21t6d7c9t.wl%randy@psg.com> <570A67B4.3010206@comcast.net> <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>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <570CEED7.1030202@pi.nu>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 20:49:27 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160412110839.GA20488@gsp.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ggsEJlfTduSsIQFBgbTD_EINay0>
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 12:49:47 -0000

All,

On 2016-04-12 19:08, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 07:01:16PM -0400, chopps@chopps.org 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
>