Re: [Manycouches] DOGFOOD Virtual BoF

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

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.

Best regards,
Kathleen

>
> Cheers,
> S.
>
>

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen