IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective

Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> Thu, 09 June 2016 19:46 UTC

Return-Path: <mstjohns@comcast.net>
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 ED9C112D11E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 12:46:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.126
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.126 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=comcast.net
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 GFqreQ16BZuQ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 12:46:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-po-08v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-po-08v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe16:19:96:114:154:167]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB51A12D0BC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 12:46:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-po-18v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.242]) by resqmta-po-08v.sys.comcast.net with SMTP id B5tpbMtm3B1Y8B5uab55Pl; Thu, 09 Jun 2016 19:46:40 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1465501600; bh=kC/HnS+vjJky5xWSlLMWYBxC+zQVaY/6cWsU4x8wbSg=; h=Received:Received:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=hxwFksSUiCnVi2w03Eq1b/KR0MHlM22EAFvOd9H0BiEggaoypn6LU8CjMZHY22tBa 7snmZFUwAy5ACuj5IXPUno9QqbbxPGKUMc9s9LNMn8zYbKuoUiTANk0wM5EJFj/mE5 D3UGHkXuSSQ9LfM2puYACYeW9B4GEskFzz51PUbniSlxADSLBw9uJh1PvxSujsjUYd 7RWTECM+i9H/ZHonTMdLu8Dl+NrGtMRooDzukIfVgioKEh3yNAufhyZ7EwXOOYrtlF IN3G82ov1gj1Ca0g0d8X2HfZ/ZbzUwxEmEAdtTgmakBXeDY43HxmLWaJIdoML1BJqm 6bYwxXHjIteQg==
Received: from [IPv6:2601:148:c000:1951:c8f0:67e5:88b1:2975] ([IPv6:2601:148:c000:1951:c8f0:67e5:88b1:2975]) by resomta-po-18v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id 4jmf1t00K3rc8Jx01jmgA3; Thu, 09 Jun 2016 19:46:40 +0000
Subject: Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <20160608135632.20063.81792.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <256CE0D6-1A2A-459A-9800-FAF1960EDD09@consulintel.es> <D6E8D8D5-EB54-412C-9620-A8A3B2EC674B@gmail.com> <CAC8QAcewGyG3hTy4vPzuu69mznXOC-gMrODQefUqscqfwKwKTg@mail.gmail.com> <82901186-58D0-4C71-9562-57F90DFCE0CF@gmail.com> <CAC8QAcfia-boXPGGa-8ioh-Tcg4pdEnuH2C+=e7swE2g1c2ZTg@mail.gmail.com> <cd3058b4-28f7-59d2-1596-cdf8c6ea359e@gmail.com> <9ebfd327-9faf-dc0b-914f-138a2be4908f@cisco.com>
From: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <ca583cf2-ed15-7563-7f4d-4aa813227b2e@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 15:47:26 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9ebfd327-9faf-dc0b-914f-138a2be4908f@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/nwzd5awNH3zynhiDzYkXdVXwTz8>
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: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 19:46:42 -0000

On 6/9/2016 3:31 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Would it make
> sense to do an experiment such that we drop one meeting for one year and
> instead require active working groups to hold an Interim or several
> virtual interims that fairly distribute timezone pain?

Before anyone moves too far down this path,  the following need to be 
answered as well:

If we drop one meeting a year, how do we compensate for the lost revenue 
from that meeting?  Should the meeting we drop be the one that would 
tend to provide us the least revenue?

Mike

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email