Re: [Manycouches] DOGFOOD Virtual BoF

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

I ran out of bandwidth and dropped it on the floor.  Yes, there was a lot of support, and some good discussion.   If you want to pick it up, that would be cool.   One thing to think about is, is the right way to do this to try to talk IETF leadership into doing it, or would it work better to just start getting working groups to do their work online and not in person, and just not meet at IETF in-person meetings, or only at one designated meeting per year.

The problem is that the IETF leadership may not be able to see the problem clearly because it’s so far outside of the scope of standard operating procedure, and convincing them to take the lead on this probably won’t work—it hasn’t in the past.   So can we instead lead by simply being smart about our own behavior as IETF participants?

> On Feb 11, 2020, at 3:44 PM, Nick Doty <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Apologies that I’m coming to this conversation belatedly.
> 
>> On Apr 10, 2019, at 8:38 AM, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> At IETF we had a bar BoF which hopefully quite a few people on this mailing list attended.   At the BoF we had a round table discussion about what peoples ideas were for getting the IETF into a new mode of operation that makes better use of the technology we’ve developed, rather than requiring in-person meetings as a driver for getting work done.
>> 
>> At the BoF we agreed to have a virtual BoF online in about a month.   It’s about two weeks before the deadline for that, so I wanted to have a quick discussion about what to do at this BoF before announcing it.  Because this is not an IETF working group, the usual notification requirements don’t technically apply, but on a practical level I think two weeks notice is just as necessary for a virtual BoF as for a virtual interim, so I’m going to ask the secretariat to announce it the same way.
>> 
>> I would like to try out some of the stuff that Wes talked about in his presentation at HotRFC: rather than just doing a normal BoF, I’d like to see if we can use existing tools to achieve some of what Wes described.   We will still want to do some online video discussion, but I’d also like to try using a Wiki and an interim-only mailing list as the primary communication method, and do the BoF over two days to give us time to participate in the way Wes described.   This may fail miserably or may go well—we can only find out by trying.
>> 
>> If we go ahead with this, one of the things I will ask is that you add to the Wiki your recollection of what you said in the bar BoF.   I at least didn’t take notes, and I don’t think Wes did either, but I think there was a lot of useful stuff exchanged there.
>> 
>> Does anybody object to this approach?   If I don’t hear loud objections, I’ll set up a wiki and ask people to work on it; I’d like it if we could do that work before the interim so that at the interim we can talk about it and form some ideas for experimentation.
> 
> Catching up on the thread it looks like there was a lot of support for this idea. Was there a wiki set up and the tools/ideas tracked somewhere?
> 
> I think part of responding to the climate crisis — and being prepared for the impacts of the climate crisis and responses that others will take to encourage mitigation of the climate crisis — is practicing conducting useful meetings without all having to be physically co-located. One idea I’ve heard proposed is regional satellite meetings. I’d be happy to hop on a train to join a US/East satellite meeting that could have a few conference rooms and some nice videoconference software to the other regional ietf1XX satellites, rather than flying to a different continent on a regular basis. That it would be much cheaper financially would also make such meetings more accessible to recovering academics like myself, and could serve our goals of encouraging more new participation and participation from outside well-resourced companies.
> 
> Looking forward to learning more from you all.
> Cheers,
> Nick