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

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Wed, 13 April 2016 02:42 UTC

Return-Path: <akatlas@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 DE20A12DD98 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 19:42:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.699 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 AB1xR1tQRWDP for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 19:42:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22a.google.com (mail-oi0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22a]) (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 6842112DD7D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 19:42:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id w85so46973964oiw.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 19:42:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=McFJyBRP9tbvnvkC5EsFcABlvGkcY1UV1mf4ahKxAOw=; b=NsSLclQT3tUz0ekk6uuHt8xmwkR9Q5DjN0De+GMXREgG1NrtfTpaF6vupcyA3V4uPE OSRJLPJohA8ieFh9ywtNkFnt5qqjyB5kOj7oY1wSQ0Id/NIFJb3xH4L1Yed/lYBV0nR+ s1PtA0Qbaw+b5B4pz4h+0GSVM1w0y5H/QQj5pYXVZ7fEYkanRUBmKKC5pToMwbzQv6y0 GPLryBsSwihznXyUZKOiG0XTgB2W6eYtntV/cdhIi6madJcM5SW+wGDr7FXs5+U0gH/6 S3SLdXa5FwahzbR0UxMh9TrYghkiZF6vkT9XmkVQTTn406o5iw2xAe3BWTc1NZM2Nmwf 7yvw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=McFJyBRP9tbvnvkC5EsFcABlvGkcY1UV1mf4ahKxAOw=; b=QscF8fH0b4zxr1Q7Wq0g3fizdv0i0clpQTFp7e9+CQFc8ZrlS7PirAeSYCWzC+Oj6c V4g9gR3N2zXjbmreRBO7W+9a/1k07LUQ2f82vqzb5/fLW2dBE/VYFdam1n4puU4uqup4 nuLMGHu/x+hIrqAItcy7S7ZyG/kH0kA0YICftEoKa8jjmUp5rhz4zN3sNwxyMJINV8Z3 +NJfJKY+u2DYDmV4lrPZkLoIAYrcdqBWXPSSW4UpldLtnVtBYu9+RYgxZ/E9tELoEyPa t773S/6SCD52j1YXFo2+7o086400CG9nMACjyAdhn7JcifYSWkiHHAf04OGbZjBEg5/v fMGQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FW6wEXcib3HqOGVTlS7+7HfCkwCUwkrR9iNR1kSR23nWL0vHHTs5X6Z9wBUq+GB/6WUTXj8aKlwWkKaIw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.202.172.201 with SMTP id v192mr2836870oie.29.1460515348731; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 19:42:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.115.168 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 19:42:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <570DAA2F.1040007@gmail.com>
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> <570DAA2F.1040007@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 22:42:28 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rdtyfZWiUD7yGAF8YoTiuN1TaE+Zqe+q0hpXZHdtUZ1oA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Singapore]
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ced748cdf95053054ba7e
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/yfdd5QVV4jA43d5B49fQjj7tgnA>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
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 02:42:33 -0000

What I would love to see is some brainstorming on how to recreate the
serendipity of IETF hallway interactions.

For instance, could we have people sign up for "random 15-minute
conversations"
while indicating a general area (or set of WGs) of interest?   Think sort
of like
"speed-mentoring" but for all?   It could include video to get closer to
in-person
and maybe start with some suggested ice-breakers (favorite IETF meeting
site,
preferred beverage, best snack, first IETF meeting....)?

I can't beat the benefits of randomly seeing someone who didn't come
immediately
to mind - and knowing precisely who to go talk to (ok - I'm an AD -
encourage into
volunteering to do something).

Until we can recreate some of that randomness and recognition that we are
all
people who care about technology and the Internet (and have families,
opinions
on books, etc), I can't see that decreasing physical IETF meetings would be
at
all productive.

Regards,
Alia

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>