Re: [Manycouches] DOGFOOD Virtual BoF

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 06:03:28PM -0800, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Feb 11, 2020, at 5:54 PM, Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > How about we designate one mailing list for discussions about that
> > remote experience, then we might get a more organic incremental growth
> > from where we are today a better place. Heck, we SHOULD (IMHO) even
> > subscribe people automatically to such a mailing list during registration
> > as a remote attendant.
> 
> Remote attendance is a completely orthogonal question.

I don't think manycouches will never succeed if it does not start
thinking about an evolution from where we are today to where we might
want to be.  I am not even sure we can well predict where we need to be,
but i know that the people who would have to say the most about it are
those who already attend remotely. But they don't even have a mailing list
and when i bring up that most trivial to solve of issues it's 
just brushed aside. Not very encouraging process.

> 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. 

Actually we could experiment with this. For example we could lock up all
of IETF leadership in their individual hotel rooms for the plenary so
that they have to join through the virtual meeting even if thats just
unchanged webex. Would also look nice in marketing:

"IETF experiments virtually with clean conference".

Attendant should also be in their room, or else have to pay 5 USD to enter
the room, the collected money will be gifted to some fitting charity.
Sure, mostly symbolism , but its also an experiment for the whole IETF
community to actually use our own dog food. 

> I personally would not want to get rid of them entirely, although maybe that would be the best answer.   But three a year doesn???t really fit my workflow???it???s more of a problem than a solution.   So for me, restructuring my IETF work so that I don???t show up thrice a year is the way to go.   If everybody doing work in the IETF did that, maybe we???d get somewhere.   Even if only some of us do, we can get somewhere.   

There are enough contributors not coming to every IETF, one i know only
comes to one, but is still productive.

> 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.

See above, its already not a black and white world.

> 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.

I don't understand what you're saying. rephrase ?

Toerless