Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sat, 15 April 2017 14:01 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 7BB8B128D44 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Apr 2017 07:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 u3BdorD1JWmi for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Apr 2017 07:01:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2FD81275AB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Apr 2017 07:01:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EBAA203B8; Sat, 15 Apr 2017 10:26:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 790CC636BB; Sat, 15 Apr 2017 10:01:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
cc: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities
In-Reply-To: <87inm6uhet.fsf@chopps.org>
References: <93404c29-78ba-ff9b-9170-f5f2a5389a31@gmail.com> <E068F01A-B720-4E7A-A60F-AA5BDA22D535@consulintel.es> <20170404181505.GA4004@localhost> <CAAQiQRcvu-BfBA_NEqZwXsHEn6ujpa2=w7P5Vu2f6GLXjKqkcA@mail.gmail.com> <20170404202446.GB4004@localhost> <20170404211526.GA25253@gsp.org> <003F08E0-D80E-40F7-AB15-6588B7B140CF@tzi.org> <20170410180555.GA20454@gsp.org> <AF3B5F0A-EEA7-402D-B61E-EDE6CE2AE16C@tzi.org> <8546635c-f838-e7f7-a5ec-3a855a14c0f9@dcrocker.net> <20170411232408.GE48535@verdi> <15694.1491965723@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <f1481391-b477-0596-d8ea-adc02ec48e94@pi.nu> <10890.1492007455@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <04c5e6a6-fe92-20ca-f01e-5c2d17dc6022@gmail.com> <9609909d-f631-4651-23a0-c7267bc3b7f5@joelhalpern.com> <87inm6uhet.fsf@chopps.org>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 10:01:41 -0400
Message-ID: <6566.1492264901@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/qCKkWeuP0YX8LiIe3EN7Sq_osS4>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 14:01:47 -0000

Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> wrote:
    >> Yes, funding matters.  But in my view that is secondary to the actual
    >> benefit of the meetings.  Which is why I attend.

    > +1

    > Whenever I read messages that advocate for switching to remote only
    > meetings, I have to wonder, are those people just not getting what I
    > get out of f2f meetings? I find the meetings invaluable for the reasons
    > you list above.

Oh, I get it completely!
And there is a fax effect on f2f meetings.  This is why we are willing to put
up with the hassle of travel in the first place.

My argument is as follows:  if a significant number of people can not attend
in person due to visa, travel, etc. issues, then the value of the meeting
declines.   The people that we interact with a high bandwidth become the same
set of people who can get through.  Our views become myopic.

So in the case where we can not have everyone in the same place, then it
would be fairer to have "everyone" remote.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-