Re: Virtual IETFs (was: Re: Concerns about Singapore)

Ted Lemon <> Tue, 12 April 2016 13:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20FE512DDC4 for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 06:48:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hX4dqSRoz66C for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 06:48:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5EE112DB90 for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 06:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id c126so26015308lfb.2 for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 06:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ZQSWCOO5zd97hfcnLjo0Pfz3xopE78kLjwFyXmYLmJw=; b=ct6uZegwjxODaK3qogAR3ayJOTvHarr5QVnQEm/r6lqoPINE/o/r0fD+UU/MuXzIXc 4tLuhM0hmhtbM0/k9GRU40zAm6HzWedD+VqPZ3Dz1mQlNmleehADdJ/dXrTjkswnAIMV 052/MghNZkGoM87/eWhsMcbX1lFUHyLYaym85/ltMsQqUvE1khWd/OmKYNrcOC/Jhc8p e2NKz46o4tS6VnuEp/cFrwbJVJqBBbDMVbxSakIhsJP2NbheKgWuzBubkWNVMTgsmvKT xh4nOz0d+uCMkZiKS+NNUKK+KA/FNiFEaqlMPlxviEQqZMmytMvz7wqomppsalOfeKqG ORyw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ZQSWCOO5zd97hfcnLjo0Pfz3xopE78kLjwFyXmYLmJw=; b=nDCJM0YWdULR+zj0Asp5yqcEUDgJawM8lufj+o/z/UqfqAIu47Xud0acV4bRfg+gRc WxbYoWQDvaIalU5uCMur1Bq3Jkf6YQz7rdBXrLRurh7CUFxovrhtvtS1JfYS2m9pN6di W1hG/GeVdfMvSLnI1VYvWDlMxmmgGWwJBv+FDysAI2V9WD0c8RPDFmKHo/NqEiIsvGbY 6dIIPdrwRYWEdulOUFcMs6t7OmJRDPA/N0nlW5lKSHfwV3qaBgSD459hOMXxahmLLZnN CISWB4oSuvZWLhbAWWNtFD+aZooKpEHP58l7T6LLqf9ZmskVcWlrYvq3X2UZ8NjiZaMC lIXQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FUKW8qxAw1GQOhKY1ojuivZE7z6UKm9iURkJJrevlXVzuM7fPTGveyl78HDgU4l67y8HWD0CQeqV/ELSQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id xp9mr1410599lbb.133.1460468911892; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 06:48:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 06:47:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: []
In-Reply-To: <EMEW3|97bceb9b22356ec71621ead633105fcfs3BEgQ03tjc||>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <EMEW3|9aaa87920b361e2e71efe9c7005e927cs3BChQ03tjc||> <> <> <EMEW3|bbf82c39a7afc0305d21ff1c5582540bs3BDUh03tjc||> <> <> <EMEW3|97bceb9b22356ec71621ead633105fcfs3BEgQ03tjc||>
From: Ted Lemon <>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:47:52 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Virtual IETFs (was: Re: Concerns about Singapore)
To: Tim Chown <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c26b2ab3034e053049ea04
Archived-At: <>
Cc: ietf <>
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 13:48:36 -0000

When I had to miss Prague, I just time-shifted for the week.   Wouldn't
work for everyone, but it seemed fine to me.

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Tim Chown <> wrote:

> On 12 Apr 2016, at 14:22, Ted Lemon <> wrote:
> The problem with a larger virtual interim is that it doesn't replace an
> IETF, and so you're adding workload but not subtracting any workload.   I
> don't see the point in that.
> Well, there may be a number of WGs that wish to progress their work a bit
> more briskly, or have one or more specific topics that need prompt
> discussion, and use an interim meeting to achieve that. So I’m not sure
> it’s adding to workload, rather it may allow us to be more efficient.  But
> the main issue with any virtual meeting is timezones. There’s really no way
> to deal with that problem satisfactorily.
> Tim
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Tim Chown <> wrote:
>> On 12 Apr 2016, at 12:49, Ted Lemon <> wrote:
>> Agree about Buenos Aires.   We already do excellent virtual interims--I
>> think if your standard for whether we can do a virtual IETF is that virtual
>> interims work, we are already there.
>> I think that if we want to test this idea, what we need to do is
>> designate some future IETF virtual _now_, and then start preparing, rather
>> than say "oh, we should do a virtual" and then dither about when we might
>> be ready.   We will never be so ready that a virtual IETF feels identical
>> to an in-person IETF, so let's just abandon that idea and get started on
>> making a virtual IETF that, while different, is still a success.
>> Sounds interesting, if something of a big leap to attempt. Is a larger
>> wholly virtual, multiple WG interim meeting a next step then?
>> Btw where do we get the virtual T-shirt? ;)
>> Tim
>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Tim Chown <> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> To minimise the chances of a ‘Singapore’ happening again it would seem
>>> prudent to
>>> a) re-use previous successful meeting venues for the bulk of our
>>> meetings (say, every 5 in 6 meetings); this is one criteria for meeting
>>> selection as it stands anyway; that list might include venues like Prague,
>>> Berlin, Vancouver, etc.; we’d need to be clear in what ‘successful’ means -
>>> the meeting feedback forms provide one such mechanism;
>>> b) be transparent at an early stage about where new venues might be,
>>> whether by country or city, so there is a fair chance for people to give
>>> feedback; of course, how such feedback is weighed is an open question, but
>>> at least it would be there, and the IAOC can then make a decision ‘eyes
>>> wide open’.
>>> In such a system, Buenos Aires would have been a ‘1 in 6’ venue. In that
>>> light, I’d note that many people have said how much they enjoyed Buenos
>>> Aires as a meeting place. And while the IAOC probably feel rather down over
>>> the comments about Singapore, they should be praised for going out on
>>> something of a limb in making the Buenos Aires selection. (And I’d add that
>>> the enthusiasm and helpfulness of the LACNIC hosts was also fantastic.)
>>> In terms of virtual meetings, I’d suggest we try to hold more interim WG
>>> meetings, some completely virtually, and learn how to make those better. If
>>> we can regularly hold good quality wholly virtual interim meetings, then we
>>> can consider whether the same technology might be used for a larger meeting.
>>> Tim
>>> > On 12 Apr 2016, at 00:54, Ted Lemon <> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > While I do not think it's true that we can entirely get away without
>>> doing in-person meetings, I do agree with you that we can do better at
>>> doing remote meetings.   Perhaps we should let this unfortunate event drive
>>> us to make the attempt.
>>> >
>>> > If we were to attempt such a thing, how do you think it would work?