Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

I've done remote meetings going back to the days of when we had to
make mbone work first. (it worked once!!!)
I've probably done a dozen or so remote meetings.

Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > Let me first say that I very much appreciate the effort made by
    > e.g. the meetecho people. The experience of listening to a meeting on
    > meetecho and sitting in the room listening is very close. All the time
    > until someone that sits in the middle of the room don't care to go the
    > mike to make a comment, but just shout it out. When this happens you
    > just don't lose the comment, but you also lose much of the context for
    > the continued discussion.

Right, so this is why it's better for everyone to be remote.

    > It quite often happens (it has happened to me) that someone notify the
    > chairs that "there is someone wanting to say something on the
    > meetecho", only when that happens that particular discussion is already
    > "taken to the list".

Yes, bad chair discipline.

    > But an IETF meeting is so much more than the moderate number of hours
    > you spend in meeting rooms, if you participate remotely you miss what
    > is probably the most important aspect of an IETF F2F - the 10-15
    > corridor meetings you have each day.

I totally agree.

    > I'd say cancel SFO and move to place where we all have an equal chance
    > to attend, even if you have made a business trip to Iran or somewhere
    > else in the Middle East, and where we don't have to give out passwords
    > to e.g. laptops that may contain business critical information.

If we can do that, I agree. Lets do that.

If we can't outright cancel, but can renegotiate significantly, my suggestion
stands.  Move the meeting and make SFO a US left-coast remote hub.


--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-