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

Rich Kulawiec <> Tue, 12 April 2016 12:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53A9012EC49 for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 05:46:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B9Ri-S9AS9Gz for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 05:46:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18B0E12EB25 for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 05:46:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.15.1/8.14.9) with SMTP id u3CCkdEA025983 for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 08:46:40 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 08:46:39 -0400
From: Rich Kulawiec <>
Subject: Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Singapore]
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
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: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:46:43 -0000

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 07:57:53AM -0400, 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 conference
> fee could be quite high for an individual contributor I think, we should
> perhaps explore a reduced fee for individuals when this would make the
> difference between attending and not.

It's not just the money, as I've said several times.  It's the time:
not everyone has the incredible luxury of being able to be away from their
job or their family.  It's the travel expense and the travel hassle/risk,
both of which are increasing.  It's the political/legal climate that
attendees are exposed to.  It's the problem of unrestricted Internet
access.  It's the increasingly-intrusive border crossings.  It's all
the factors that go into being there in person for several days.

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.