Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Fri, 14 April 2017 17:49 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 456A8120725; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 10:49:20 -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] 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 BNiZyC-3fyzl; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 10:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B75E81294CF; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 10:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.70] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1cz5LP-000LHR-E3; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 13:49:15 -0400
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 13:49:08 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
cc: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, iaoc@ietf.org, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102
Message-ID: <8AC41042FC6544B50B0D40F2@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <CAA93jw7ScrfQQc2FsN1mHupniC_CCyP=uO87A_imLpCFufH3mA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <149204035801.15694.8437554373033456064.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <16010f27-e86b-b17d-4a13-62645e0bdc89@cs.tcd.ie> <3DF53F6ACE338CACF247F910@PSB> <CAA93jw7ScrfQQc2FsN1mHupniC_CCyP=uO87A_imLpCFufH3mA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.70
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/qPVhIUE48XYEb6ku9RriQcj6ei0>
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: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 17:49:20 -0000
--On Thursday, April 13, 2017 11:42 -0700 Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote: > I find meetecho to have evolved to being an effective tool, > and no longer intend to attend ietf meetings in person. I'll > miss the beer, company and cookies; won't miss the travel and > hotel hassles. I'm not quite at the point of "never", although Chicago was my first f2f meeting in a few years. However, even weighting the beer, company, and cookies in, I think you identify another factor that the IAOC should consider and that may affect the present discussion and especially the short-term changes in policies, practices, or facilities: I think it is likely that, over time, more people will follow your lead in not finding f2f attendance at particular meetings critical and, in particular, in not attending meeting that appear to them, perhaps not long before the registration deadline, to be more trouble then they are worth. Could that result in reduced attendance in July 2018? Sure, although probably not as much reduced as Michael's "local west coast attendees" prediction. But suppose that, by then, US border policies have stabilized back to around the 2015 status quo (plus or minus some ongoing ranting that people might have learned to ignore by then), UK policies are in a state of some disarray a year into the Brexit transition, and a non-trivial number of people find Singapore inappropriate because of issues discussed at great length on this list and/or a bit expensive for their tastes or budgets. That combination of scenarios -- none of them especially far-fetched -- with those of us who like to get to a meeting occasionally even if we expect to be remote most of the time plus locals looking in to see what IETF is about (IIR, we've had a large number of those in previous meetings in the Bay Area and down the peninsula) could easily lead to a larger-than-expected attendance in San Francisco (even if the IAOC has already estimated the last factor and included it in their estimates). That is a really bad game to play, especially if one remembers how restive the community gets when meeting rooms are too small for WG attendees to get into them. While I think it is less likely than that US policies 15 months hence will be a lot closer to where they were a year ago than to what Trump tried to put into effect in January, were changes to occur in Singapore that would result in visa requirements for everyone and requirements to indicate religion and sexual preferences on applications, previous discussions on this list would imply that meeting would be, IMO, in a _lot_ more trouble than we can anticipate for San Francisco. And that, again without underestimating the difficulties or costs of meeting cancellations, moves, etc., brings me rather quickly back to "can't predict what will happen nearly well enough to make finely-tuned plans wrt either countries or cities within those countries on the basis of immigration/ travel/ or border policies" so the most useful strategy is the general policies we've been following, with as much flexibility for unpredictable fluctuations in attendance vis-a-vis projections as we can get. Either that or, in the hope that we can predict that far in advance (which might not be true), we just stop trying to set meeting locations more than a year in advance with whatever that implies about choices, costs, conflicts and disruption (including probably needing to cancel some meetings, or at least move dates around, because we can't otherwise find a place to meet). Probably can't have it both ways. john
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Vinayak Hegde
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … John C Klensin
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Michael Richardson
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Eliot Lear
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Randy Bush
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Leslie Daigle
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Toerless Eckert
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Yoav Nir
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Toerless Eckert
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Aaron Falk
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Dave Taht
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Michael StJohns
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … John C Klensin
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Joel Halpern Direct
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … tom p.
- RE: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Eric Gray
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Stephen Farrell
- RE: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Eric Gray
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Khaled Omar
- Fw: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Khaled Omar
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Khaled Omar
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Khaled Omar
- Re: Fw: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, … Khaled Omar
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Yoav Nir
- Re: Fw: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, … Matthew Kerwin
- Fw: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Khaled Omar
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Melinda Shore
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Khaled Omar
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Randy Bush
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Stephen Farrell
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and … Stephen Farrell
- Fwd: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and… Leslie Daigle
- Re: [IAOC] Update on feedback on US-based meeting… Leslie Daigle