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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 13 April 2016 02:08 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 E959E12DE1E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 19:08:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 4_H6gBbLyDEa for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 19:08:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x233.google.com (mail-pf0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::233]) (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 8DB4912DC2D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 19:08:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x233.google.com with SMTP id c20so24699111pfc.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 19:08:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=H03Eys4+zuYtmYR1DC9Hx/8tRhPx4e3/G9rI5K/gIzQ=; b=zl8jDceeRklhLDg6hJSH5h5x/wmgSlDT/W/nVCJGFFj+IKls0OUmkcwLlsu+TCv8J/ edOfwdzun05TPvB+leXuSOQuidDQdV3Jcd714XvNdUiS+Byh6Apx/gM2dMeAuKS6ZkMm fcsG4SL3k1NwyAeIDk91D85HTMqjs22IOk9JnihES8NVEI9zPaDsiGqjX0YLSDujCcz6 It3/MuDjqMYQLNfxAmeC5WZO8j5J5OlIcuZ7ApnQDLTts+qeNnOfYeSAzGVCc8/alhjV 0DMA5rjuRxiASMjIHK8X0ljLL1qa1DQfe1RfAHUR5vL4DVcsSfvw/xTpZVfc0NFCTm34 2vOw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=H03Eys4+zuYtmYR1DC9Hx/8tRhPx4e3/G9rI5K/gIzQ=; b=dfW4qdO8+rWK2WckEkcsSXRfAylQMtHhn5E96xbMgq8dOX+8ggURzQIcQdkQlef0XS jbh11cwG5z48fHbtr7K/zEBO9WfAFYcrLm9YkZpZ3VH2bf1exvAUB1OBwfctHFnyilze pf51VA7ZDeoyOvmOAeORprjZ94zm7m7EUPkHHy8SN9/pSZ2buePKYEp9TceygJYckgtN IdQhAZYGSJtuHl7KZpuCaZVXMDkb1kqgqTr+YfHUGB4TeS8u4ha1l0Ll9mz/xEYQIq97 Xy0gQcFG/oiO0POjyptLwcWxQG1lulf3i79ZIsPoF7D3+nm8VpsQ65Ih/Z9a2DbyP9Cy AWew==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FVTZCyXON0FWK/BQ6wk0wdqJjcVBLvTQf16+7fYxkPkqJNmIh7fVJdRRhaKEq+/Rw==
X-Received: by 10.98.31.218 with SMTP id l87mr9264757pfj.101.1460513326165; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 19:08:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:df0:0:2006:c0da:ac17:5f6d:8e76? ([2001:df0:0:2006:c0da:ac17:5f6d:8e76]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i9sm46502397pfi.95.2016.04.12.19.08.42 for <ietf@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 12 Apr 2016 19:08:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Singapore]
To: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
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>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <570DAA2F.1040007@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 14:08:47 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160412124639.GA27223@gsp.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/vY9YppCUl-fQEDb4h-Lo0_iOzLc>
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: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:08:48 -0000

Cherry-picking a few points:
On 13/04/2016 00:46, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
...
> And the difficulties/expense of travel are only going to get worse
> for the forseeable future: they're not going to get better.

That is indisputable.

On 13/04/2016 00:49, Loa Andersson wrote:

> Let us say that we set aside enough time about half way between two IETF
> meetings and schedule all the meetings, as requested by wg chairs or
> people in charge of other meetings, as a long series.

That won't work with 4-monthly meetings as today. It might work with
6-monthly meetings.

> Let us assume that the wg meetings is on average 1.5 hours, scheduling
> 100 wg meetings would require 150 hours.

I think that's optimistic. Remote meetings go more slowly due to technology
glitches and the need for more formal patterns of Q/A. It's still faster than
email though (see Alia's message).

On 13/04/2016 03:42, Joel M. Halpern 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.

Yes. I've been on a one-meeting-per-year model once or twice for personal
reasons and it is *inferior* to attending every meeting. Some people
can manage to time shift their lives for a week for remote participation,
but most people can't; family, day job, and sunshine combine against it.
The time zone issue is exclusionary. Also, there is nothing like the
intensity of being on site with everybody.

Not to say that we shouldn't improve even more on what we can do
with Meetecho. But an important part of being able to make the best
use of remote participation is *knowing* the people at the other
end from previous in-person meetings.

> 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.)

On 13/04/2016 04:00, 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.

You can, but it's a much more deliberate action and you're less
likely to get serendipity effects. I would probably have been in
some of those discussions in BA that Joel mentioned, but unfortunately
I was on the wrong side of the world and fast asleep.

IMHO we need the right blend of in-person and virtual meetings, and
we'll find that blend by progressive change, not by revolution.

   Brian