Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities

Michael Richardson <> Wed, 12 April 2017 14:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DD84129BB5 for <>; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 07:31:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VmTg4xap0GMl for <>; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 07:31:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A54BC129BC8 for <>; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 07:30:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5EF82055F; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 10:55:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85B82636E0; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 10:30:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Loa Andersson <>
Subject: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <20170404181505.GA4004@localhost> <> <20170404202446.GB4004@localhost> <> <> <> <> <> <20170411232408.GE48535@verdi> <> <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 10:30:55 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 14:31:07 -0000

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 <> 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 <>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-