Re: [Manycouches] Daniel presentation @ 113

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

I've been through the thread.
I want to quote some key words from Eliot's email.

Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > Some time ago, I wrote the IETF about how I was embarrassed by my kid
    > about how I was wrecking the future for the next generation by doing so
    > much FLYING to meetings. 

It's not the meetings.
It's the FLYING.

It's not the just the FLYING to IETF, it is the FLYING to *MEETINGS* (plural).
I know that some of you go to a lot of meetings in person.

Except for years when I was involved with the nomcom, I travelled to only two
IETF meetings per year.  I used MBONE a few times, then it stopped working,
and then the IETF stopped using it.  I used streamed mp3 and jabber until we
got meetecho.  I put up with crappy "native" JAVAWS apps, but now we have webrtc.

The last time I was on an airplane for personal travel (only) was 1996.
All my travel since has been for business, and 90% of that travel was IETF meetings.

Key thing here to me is:
a) each of us has their own CO2 balance sheet.  IETF meetings are a choice,
   and going to Cancun is another choice.
   (If someone wants to make this an argument to always meet in Cancun, that's
    okay with me.  Better if someone says that this is an argument to have our
    meetings within a half-day train trip for a vacation destination, that's
    probably better for me)

b) there are many trips that can be done by train for a significant number
   of people.  People don't do it for a variety of reasons.
   There are logistical issues as Stephen and others have said
   with combining long-haul flights (or Ferries) and trains takes more planning time than
   most people have. [I think there is a business opportunity here. Unicast me]
   But, I have, btw, travelled Dublin to London to Berlin to Schipol, and
   then long-haul flight home.   That involved multiple meetings, and
   amortizing the long-haul flight over many meetings.  There was some hassle.

c) The IETF has led the transition to virtual meetings, and we should
   continue to do so.  We did this before the pandemic.
   The IETF has brought significant value in CO2 reduction through our
   standards, and the products that implement them.
   Should we get some kind of credit or pass for this reason?  No.
   It's too hard to calculate, but also there are hundreds of other entities
   that also contribute to this.

d) I have no use for personal carbon offsets.
   Airlines should be paying them as a matter of normal business.
   Short-haul flights are particularly costly, and I have been avoiding them
   for many years.

There are a few people (Joel, Fred) who think that he can't handle more virtual
interim meetings.  I know that they do a lot of IETF work, but I wonder if
they are in fact far too over-extended if they can't handle that extra hour a
week.  The IETF should probably take at least 2 hours of non-group activity for
each hour of group activity. That ratio may be way too low, and maybe 10:1 is
more accurate.
But, I respect that they don't want to do more virtual interim meetings.
I do, and I want fewer meetings and fewer conflicts during the plenary week.

    > I would argue that we have the
    > opportunity to work *better*. IETF meeting time always comes at a
    > premium, and working groups receive at most 3 hours time. 

I think that more virtual interim meetings, fewer document status slides,
would allow for many WGs and design teams to get more actual work done.
I want more time for hallway WG meetings, and more virtual interims are the
way to get there.

I would like Daniel to continue his work; we need to know the cost.
We may decide it's worth it.  We may decide that there are other options.

I wonder about how the CO2 cuts that Ericsson has announced will be equitably
done.   Will executives continue to pop around the place while others have all
their travel cut?
How many remember being forced to stay-over Saturday nights?  I think train
trips might be faster for many compared to that historic policy.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide