Re: [Manycouches] DOGFOOD Virtual BoF

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 11:08 AM Kathleen Moriarty <
[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 9:40 PM Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hiya,
>>
>> Minor disagreements below:-)
>>
>> On 12/02/2020 02:03, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> > The right way to do this is for people who are doing useful work in
>> > the IETF to simply transact all their work on the mailing lists and
>> > in virtual interims, and refuse to participate in in-person meetings
>> > either entirely, or to some extent.
>>
>> I find it invaluable to have met people f2f, and more
>> than once is much more than once. I don't think that
>> it'd be a good goal to try avoid that. I don't need to
>> meet 'em three times every year though.
>>
>
> I agree f2f is important, but would be fine with doing that 2 times a year
> instead of three.  I didn't attend the last meeting in line with that
> approach for myself and hours that would have been spent on a plane being a
> bit too much for that trip.
>
>>
>> >
>> > But if we take as a given that important work is done in person, and
>> > that you can’t be effective in the IETF without flying three times a
>> > year, then no amount of fancy remote attendance is going to help.
>>
>> Important work is done f2f and that ought continue to
>> be the case I think. Equally, a small amount of folks
>> are very effective without any f2f meetings. However,
>> while we ought I think aim to decrease travel we also
>> need to bear in mind that there's a lot more than words
>> or images that could be in text/audio/video going on
>> when we meet f2f, and that those non-verbal things are
>> really helpful.
>>
>> > It’s just a time-consuming rathole—when I brought this up in Prague,
>> > many of the conversations I had with people were about how to reduce
>> > latency to the point where remote attendees wouldn’t be
>> > inconvenienced.   Physics is against us here—that’s not the answer.
>> As a minor point, I don't think latency is the big
>> barrier for remote attendance. Timezone mismatches
>> are the pyhsics-biggie.
>>
>
> Yes, I agree, timezone changes are tough.  I didn't stay up for all the
> sessions I would have been n had I traveled.
>
> Having said that, working groups could start to plan to skip one in person
> a year in favor of a steady cadence of virtual interims.  The pattern could
> be 2 virtual meetings between every meeting (around the schedule of
> 3meeting times), with a virtual to replace the in-person.  If enough
> working groups started to do this, they could start to align which meeting
> was skipped and we'd be able to reasonably drop a meeting have figured out
> if this worked for most groups.  It may be that we wind up with one of the
> meetings being small as opposed to be eliminated, but this is a way that we
> could try to change the meeting schedule within current guidelines.
>
> Although with travel from Asia limited now, (specifically China, but maybe
> other nearby nations too), virtual attendance may shift enough for
> Vancouver to test out remote attendance.  Other international conferences
> are making plans to cancel for fairness to those who can't attend and need
> to be present in the same way as others to have their voice heard.
>

Here's a link on the unfolding story for Mobile World Congress that is/was
to be held in Barcelona.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-12/top-mobile-conference-close-to-cancellation-due-to-coronavirus



> Best regards,
> Kathleen
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> S.
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
> Kathleen
>


-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen