Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Singapore]

<> Mon, 11 April 2016 23:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A6EB12DABF for <>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:01:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.896
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PaiMJ4kUYqsW for <>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:01:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AACB12DABD for <>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:01:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B8FA961166; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 23:01:30 +0000 (UTC)
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
User-agent: mu4e 0.9.16; emacs 24.5.1
From: <>
To: Rich Kulawiec <>
Subject: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Singapore]
In-reply-to: <>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 19:01:16 -0400
Message-ID: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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

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).


Rich Kulawiec <> 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