Re: Meet Only line - I object

Christian Hopps <> Wed, 03 February 2021 18:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31A403A0D7A; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 10:34:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5Uzgw5JgqBD8; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 10:34:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63AE63A0D74; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 10:34:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DEDDA6040A; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 18:34:45 +0000 (UTC)
From: Christian Hopps <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B3BDAB48-BE38-4C38-A657-49F53CCF6FDA"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.\))
Subject: Re: Meet Only line - I object
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2021 13:34:44 -0500
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Christian Hopps <>, The IESG <>,
To: Fred Baker <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2021 18:34:50 -0000

I've raised this point as well in various chat rooms etc. Having the title of the WG say "meet online only" implies a direction that I don't agree with, and so I haven't participated.


> On Feb 2, 2021, at 1:30 PM, Fred Baker <> wrote:
> Looking at <>, I noted that there is no mailing list for this. Had there been one, this note would have been posted to it. I apologize for the wide distribution.
> I can see setting up a policy for meetings that are cancelled by Force Majuere, but the fact that we have had such doesn’t call for stopping having meetings. The fact is that face-to-face meetings have value - people can get to know each other and set up a social basis for discussion, if nothing else. I can see scaling back - our European colleagues find the summer meeting timing awkward at best. But I don;’t see the temporary effect of having a global pandemic as justification for simply shutting down to mailing lists - which would be the likely effect of failing to meet.
> So yes, I think we would do well to meet for IETF 111 and on.
> Sent from my iPad