Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Singapore]

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Tue, 12 April 2016 19:08 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.com>
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 20B2212E2BC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:08:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLACK=1.7] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 l9up8uxRwCYR for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:08:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x235.google.com (mail-lf0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 957FE12E2EA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x235.google.com with SMTP id g184so38904694lfb.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=yBnMk9EkBofAk6M8LX6n67NL0S0r1D3TEFvenolAy/8=; b=lcCMeMDOqW6+VIdEIvjhO9a/3ktcJnwfU+HOEM9da5eXO2QP+9fUJP5ZeSQTYXV8D6 jB3OAz8AV09eXE49YeEe+V5bgkHc3zv1le1FXS2NxPD9XvvyreMhVZRwisgAV1rU68ZQ /SlUaNrsPMXQJvGAu9Tsd5uVeAxmiHlsAxqL+3vkrcWbxGfcZ3qeIVRHHcWWSmfnL9Le QPkwB4G3EzsHto/U6hy8ankpgyWizDMIar9qEKA9lRfmIaCldMDLe/qifEDunkW80Wpg ez95sJwk8iqoxKBMs+R8WTuxe5ycZSOmP6mHckIDupnJmE1zI2klM2TRzd7Js52+LB5p p0Jw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=yBnMk9EkBofAk6M8LX6n67NL0S0r1D3TEFvenolAy/8=; b=CubWXqkROLJ7wRyBq9MfhLklU4RZkSVUMHo9559C5srO+PXlY/YiVhvPB91WY0gH2l tzsLFrHhd+V424zONnFK1lNAVIVP2A+95N1p+Xu4bWsB3YE0ZtD+V4N0gcJ7y0AsRblJ pKKWkw6/tTHbSRlTOXJB+fg/NyIcnfLyHWxufnfWoFi70CGym4uj44KyaDcT1L3h+4PR 1MgwMnKX0t0AR/Bc33Y0AI/J7LmlY7QOXBVPTL7B6oBFUggn9CiFxpHg63i8UAkLDRh3 EbxEl9evpPnsHpnx6VvSKvh9VXqgkxsQohhOYuvi9CKvUHjFQJXfoLg+3H9rN/XMO6Jh ah7A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FVTyZVLTX/pOt7+3gO0IX2oDjdPiKlihKR2Rt7ABYsmLGYXkblXeBCRNb3DgyszUMHNqQ/XtwjWvNsAMw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.49.50 with SMTP id r18mr2125985lbn.65.1460488118617; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:08:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.198.70 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:08:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <570D1F04.8050701@joelhalpern.com>
References: <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> <87twj7eon7.fsf@tops.chopps.org> <20160412110839.GA20488@gsp.org> <8760vn82f2.fsf@tops.chopps.org> <20160412124639.GA27223@gsp.org> <87fuurgd8f.fsf@tops.chopps.org> <CABmDk8kCfTB_AKyqV4X+AghL2G7i+XcKR=tzV0jybM05k+UU4Q@mail.gmail.com> <570D175A.1040001@joelhalpern.com> <CAPt1N1n0_UJ5AVzO=dyvzeLtYi0b8g5894wyhctwPwqTzme-PQ@mail.gmail.com> <570D1F04.8050701@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:08:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHTAnr+ugEx4+SJzdj0junZudx43kTn4bnHp1g79TZPPfg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Singapore]
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113605a482724305304e63af
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/md4QPi2z2D8O2HA4k_WM5e60Xlc>
Cc: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>, "<ietf@ietf.org>" <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: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 19:08:43 -0000

Hi,

I agree that f2f meetings are best.
If not for the ad-hoc meetings, many of us would have
stopped going to IETFs a long time ago.  The official
meeting slots have devolved into status updates and slide presentations.

But don't think for a second that 20 hours of travel each way and thousands
of dollars in expenses are easy on anybody, As the remote tools keep getting
better, many of us will be asking if IETF travel is really worth it.


Andy




On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
wrote:

> Ted, you missed my point.  Yes, I can arrange a call with the relevant
> people.  And I frequently do.
> It is harder, but that would be acceptable.
>
> The important part is that such calls are MUCH less effective than
> face-to-face discussions.  There are lots of well-known reasons for this.
>
> And no, inc ase it was not obvious, without the face-to-face meeting,
> there is no way to arrange such face-to-face meetings.
>
> Yes, we should work to make remote participation more effective.  Doing
> away with the face-to-face meetings reminds me of the old SF story of the
> ballet dancers who were forced to dance wearing extra weights, to be "fair"
> to the less talented dancers.
>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
> On 4/12/16 12:00 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
>> This is all true, but the idea that it can't be replicated online is
>> silly.   How did you arrange to have lunch with these people?   You went
>> looking for them, rounded them up, and sat down to lunch.   You can do
>> that online as well.
>>
>> It is certainly true that random conversation in the halls can also
>> happen and lead to useful consequences, but having taken heavy advantage
>> of "running into people" in BA, I can tell you that a lot of it was
>> deliberate, and the parts that weren't probably would have been
>> triggered by WG meetings even if they hadn't been triggered by just
>> running into someone familiar in the lobby of the Hilton.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com
>> <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     I believe that there would be a real cost in moving to remote-only
>>     meetings.  Even putting aside the time zone difficulties, and the
>>     reduced effectiveness of in-meeting interaction, there are aspects
>>     of face-to-face interaction taht current remote technologies simply
>>     do not capture.
>>     It was very helpful in BA (and at many previous IETF meetings) to be
>>     able to find time to talk with a small number of people concerned
>>     about an aspect of one working group.  I did that over meals,
>>     breaks, etc.  It sorted out issues far more effectively than email
>>     conversations (in several cases, we had tried to sort it out via
>>     email.  10 minutes face-to-face clarified what was being missed, and
>>     found a good path forward.)
>>
>>     Even in-meeting, when the meeting works well it takes advantage of
>>     the nature of face-to-face interactions.  Admittedly, many sessions
>>     do not need this, but many do.
>>
>>     Yours,
>>     Joel
>>
>>     On 4/12/16 10:09 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>         On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 8:37 AM, <chopps@chopps.org
>>         <mailto:chopps@chopps.org>
>>         <mailto:chopps@chopps.org <mailto:chopps@chopps.org>>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>              Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org <mailto:rsk@gsp.org>
>>         <mailto:rsk@gsp.org <mailto:rsk@gsp.org>>> writes:
>>
>>
>>              > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 07:57:53AM
>>         -0400,chopps@chopps.org <mailto:chopps@chopps.org>
>>         <mailto:chopps@chopps.org <mailto:chopps@chopps.org>> wrote:
>>              >> Your suggestion of not having them would subtract value
>>         from the process
>>              >> though. I don't see the win.
>>              >
>>              > The win is that all of the time and effort and expense
>>         (all of which
>>              > are finite resources) that go into those could be
>>         directed elsewhere.
>>
>>              The meetings and their fees are income positive, they
>>         aren't a drain on
>>              resource, the opposite in fact.
>>
>>         [MB] I would agree when it comes to dollars, but people (i.e., the
>>         effort to which Rich is referring) are also a resource and
>>         volunteers do
>>         the work.  If the only volunteers you get are from large
>>         companies, I
>>         think the IETF does lose.  With improved remote participation,
>>         individuals that aren't sponsored by large companies can continue
>> to
>>         contribute.  Without it, we become ineffective.  [/MB]
>>
>>
>>              > These meetings select for a highly limited (by
>>         circumstance, by necessity,
>>              > and by choice) subset.  And once upon a time, when the
>>         'net was much
>>              > younger and more limited in terms of geography and scope,
>>         that might
>>              > have been alright, because the subset mapped fairly well
>>         onto the larger
>>              > set of people involved in networking.  But that's no
>>         longer true.
>>              > And the difficulties/expense of travel are only going to
>>         get worse
>>              > for the forseeable future: they're not going to get better.
>>
>>              I think it would be useful to get some real data to measure
>>         exactly how
>>              highly limited that subset of people are. Perhaps as a
>>         simple first
>>              shot we could take email sent to IETF working group mailing
>>         lists over
>>              the last year, and cross reference that against the
>>         registrations lists
>>              of the last 3 IETFs and see what percentage of people doing
>>         IETF work
>>              cannot or choose not to attend the on-site meetings?
>>
>>         [MB] There was a separate list of registered remote attendees
>>         for this
>>         recent meeting. You can take a look there and see a number of
>>         long time
>>         contributors and some WG chairs (myself included) that have
>>         participated
>>         remotely.  The very reason I did not go was due to lack of
>> funding.
>>         There are a number of us that have contributed significantly
>>         over the
>>         past 15-30 years that would like to continue to do so but as
>>         independent
>>         consultants, some of these trips are just not fiscally
>>         possible.  I went
>>         to Yokohama so couldn't even entertain the idea of attending the
>>         meeting
>>         in BA without a sponsor.    And, I seriously doubt I can
>>         continue as a
>>         WG chair if I can't get funding in the future.  So, in the end,
>> the
>>         current model self selects and benefits the larger companies over
>>         individuals that really do want to do work for the "good of the
>>         Internet" but just can't justify the expense.   [/MB]
>>
>>              Thanks,
>>              Chris.
>>
>>
>>               >
>>               > ---rsk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>