Re: [Manycouches] Follow up on consultation on planning for IETF 111

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Thursday, April 8, 2021 07:36 +1200 Jay Daley
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> 
>> On 8/04/2021, at 6:22 AM, John C Klensin <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Jay,
>> 
>> This looks entirely reasonable.   Two small comments below
>> (with most of the rest of your note elided to save space)...
>> 
>> --On Wednesday, April 7, 2021 09:43 +1200 Jay Daley
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> The consultation on proposals regarding planning for IETF 111
>>> finished on 2 April.  Several points were raised and are
>>> paraphrased and addressed as follows:
>>> ... 
>>> d.  Consider hybrid meetings
>>> This work has now started, but potentially targeting IETF 112
>>> not IETF 111 given the work required
>> 
>> Just to clarify, this means that, for IETF 111, the meeting
>> will either be all-remote or. while remote participation will
>> be allowed and encouraged (as it has been for decades), the
>> expectation is that most participation will be f2f.  Is that
>> correct?
> 
> In order to consider a 'hybrid' meeting we will need to change
> the assessment criteria to increase the threshold for those
> that can be generalised as "If 20% or more cannot attend for X
> reason then we cannot meet".  I don't know yet what the
> replacement for 20% will be, nor what the community would find
> acceptable for X.  For example, as it currently stands nobody
> from the EU can travel to the US easily taking us over the 20%
> threshold.  If we say increased the 20% to 50% then would
> people find it acceptable to hold a hybrid meeting under such
> circumstances?

Sorry, did not mean to draw you back into a discussion about how
we would decide to have a hybrid meeting -- I think that has
been covered more than adequately for now and hope we can have
that conversation at a more convenient time and, as you said,
for IETF 112.  I was just trying to understand your definition
of "hybrid meeting" a little better and, in particular, what the
difference is between your definition of a hybrid meeting and
every meeting in at least a couple of decades prior to IETF 107.


I note in particular that IETF 102 through IETF 106 each had
more than 1/3 remote participants.  Consequently, if we could
magically go back to the middle of 2018 and magically apply
perfect foresight and today's 80% criterion to them, all of
those meetings would have been forced to be fully remote.   

Obviously (I hope) that not only is impossible but would have
been stupid.  I just want to be sure that we don't think about
"hybrid meeting" in a way that would discard the precedents and
experience of many years in which a significant number of
participants were remote.  Or, if we are going to move forward
in a way that is ultimately equivalent to "some participants are
more significant, important, or equal than others" that we be
very explicit about that.

    john