Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Singapore]

<chopps@chopps.org> Mon, 11 April 2016 23:01 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 5A6EB12DABF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:01:33 -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 PaiMJ4kUYqsW for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:01:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AACB12DABD for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:01:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tops.chopps.org (24-247-68-31.dhcp.trcy.mi.charter.com [24.247.68.31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B8FA961166; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 23:01:30 +0000 (UTC)
References: <m260vp7eke.wl%randy@psg.com> <570A6458.3050206@comcast.net> <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>
User-agent: mu4e 0.9.16; emacs 24.5.1
From: <chopps@chopps.org>
To: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
Subject: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Singapore]
In-reply-to: <20160411223403.GA6743@gsp.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 19:01:16 -0400
Message-ID: <87twj7eon7.fsf@tops.chopps.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/kYuODzcZ34Dst4EijuElE6aXw2w>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
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: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 23:01:33 -0000

Having just participated remotely for this IETF 95, and having thought
about what I was missing while doing so, I feel that nothing can really
replace the actual IETF face-to-face meeting experience. We can strive
to do as much as possible to make remote be equal as possible
participant, but remote participation can never be a 100% substitute for
100s of colleagues spending an intense week together in the same
location focused morning, noon, and night; while eating, drinking,
meeting, relaxing, on the engineering of the Internet.

Why would we want to get rid of such a rich source of inspiration and
invention?

I don't see that meetings aren't working well, instead I think we're
trying to make them work even better through enhanced remote
participation (e.g., meetecho, remote hubs, etc).

Thanks,
Chris.


Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> writes:

> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 03:17:39PM +0300, Yoav Nir wrote:
>> I don???t believe that this technology exists.
>
> People have remote meetings all day, every day.   Lots of technology
> exists, more is being invented all the time.  Perhaps (to follow
> on your mention of Meetecho in 1995) if 20 years had been invested
> in making it work for the IETF then it would be working by now.
>
>> Yeah, perhaps, some day when we???re all wearing virtual reality
>> headsets and our avatars are hanging out in a virtual venue, and we all
>> have sufficient equipment and bandwidth to handle all that. We???re not
>> there yet.
>
> Nor is there any need to go there.  Meetings do not require VR.
>
>> Virtual meetings with the technology we have today makes it very hard
>> for people with mediocre English to follow the discussion.
>
> That's (a) not a very big problem and (b) a solvable problem.
>
>
> What I'm hearing is a lot of we've-always-done-it-this-way.  Well,
> that's not working very well except for the privileged elite few
> (most of whom are backed by corporations).  And I understand
> that those with plenty of money and time and freedom have gotten
> comfortable with how-things-are-done.  It's an easy thing to do,
> I've done it myself.   But it doesn't serve the long-term interests
> of the IETF or the Internet well.
>
> ---rsk