Re: Meet Only line - I object

Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> Wed, 03 February 2021 18:34 UTC

Return-Path: <chopps@chopps.org>
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 31A403A0D7A; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 10:34:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5Uzgw5JgqBD8; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 10:34:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63AE63A0D74; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 10:34:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stubbs.int.chopps.org (047-050-069-038.biz.spectrum.com [47.50.69.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DEDDA6040A; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 18:34:45 +0000 (UTC)
From: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
Message-Id: <8A0AE3AE-1308-4BBA-A368-4EAE02993C03@chopps.org>
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 \(3654.40.0.2.32\))
Subject: Re: Meet Only line - I object
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2021 13:34:44 -0500
In-Reply-To: <88FE9226-2C8D-4B10-A393-5F3913D5453C@gmail.com>
Cc: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>, ietf@ietf.org
To: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <88FE9226-2C8D-4B10-A393-5F3913D5453C@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.40.0.2.32)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/j9CN1nI9tVKVJ_WRYIlqQJCDs8o>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: 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.

Thanks,
Chris.

> On Feb 2, 2021, at 1:30 PM, Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Looking at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-shmoo/ballot/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-shmoo/ballot/>, 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