Re: [Manycouches] Daniel presentation @ 113

I'm with Eliot. My conclusion since my first experience with remote meetings is that an annual face-to-face meeting is enough to maintain social contact, as long as there is regular audio-visual contact in between. ("Visual" is important; voice calls are not as effective at maintaining social bonds.) Maybe somebody here has a tame sociologist who can actually cite some research into this? Although we don't use Zoom for IETF meetings, I hope that there's now lots of data due to Zoom usage during the pandemic.

Regards
    Brian

On 12-Apr-22 02:32, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> 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.  This turned into a draft called draft-lear-we-gotta-stop-meeting-like-this.  That draft just asked for us, primarily the LLC to begin to study the problem.  Jay has worked on that and looked at carbon offsets, amongst other things, and also sought to quantify the impact.
> 
> That's all goodness.
> 
> I support reduction of in-person meetings, and for reasons I will outline below.  I won't propose a specific course of action in this message, but I think my preference is pretty clear.
> 
> I listened to the recording of the shmoo meeting regarding Daniel's analysis, and I took from it several points. The points I took away were these:
> 
>   * By some models on average, individuals that attend three meetings per year create as much emissions as an average German in one year.
>   * There was a question of whether the recommendation should be from 3 
meetings per year to 3 meetings every two years or 1 meeting per year.
> 
> I want to to express the same skepticism that Ted Lemon expressed about 
carbon offsets.  Carbon offsets are market-based approaches that attempt to hold constant or reduce overall carbon output. These are very useful when there is no alternative for the emitter.  A good example would be a steel producer.  Our society needs steel.
> 
> When there are alternatives, the analysis is quite a bit more complex.  By the people voluntarily buying offsets, it makes a commodity of them, and creates a price, raising that price as their demand increases.  
Those who have a choice are thus competing with those who don't have a choice, raising the latter's cost of goods and services, and discouraging those producers from participating voluntarily – and/or causing those who previously didn't participate in the market to do so, with the idea of increasing available inventory.  This invites a certain amount 
of gaming to take place, particularly if you as a producer know you are already going to reduce your emissions, perhaps due to slacking demand.  There are also potential moral hazards associated with establishing baselines; and additional challenges when viewing those baselines over time, such as whether they should reduce annually, thus reducing their availability and further increasing their price.
> 
> I am *not* saying that carbon offsets should never be considered, but I 
don't think they should be considered a simple "Go To".  This ties to the point several people aligned to, that somehow we oughtn't do our part because we are a drop in a bucket.  This we may be, but the argument has led entire countries, such as the United States to not do their part, because they point to China in particular, and claim a competitive disadvantage.  We have no such excuse, really, even if we accept it as an excuse, which we shouldn't.
> 
> As to Martin's point, while I might agree that WebRTC has a beneficial impact on the environment, when used as an alternative to meet in person, 
what we do not know is whether WebRTC would have even been delayed by holding only one in-person meeting per year.
> 
> This leaves open the question of whether reducing to one meeting per year or three meetings every two years would make a difference. *Of course* 
it would.  You may debate the model that Daniel used, but certainly there is a cost, and it is not a pittance.  The question is whether we can function as well as a community if we maintain a lower tempo of in-person meetings.  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.  While that time may be necessary, it is rarely sufficient.  Interims for any active group are a requirement.  Virtual interims, in most cases.
> 
> I am not saying that hallway wg meetings are not important. There is value there, but I don't know how to quantify it.
> 
> In fact all of this is, of course, my opinion; and not backed with a whole lot of data.  Daniel has provided some.  As a practical matter, I don't think we have a choice, *but* to reduce our plans for the number of in-person meetings.  Companies are not going to put up with the previous level of travel, and many individuals do not feel comfortable traveling.  Maybe that will change, but as we have seen, hybrid meetings themselves have their challenges.
> 
> There are other benefits to virtual plenary meetings that are not related to the environment, but we can debate those in other messages.
> 
> Eliot
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Manycouches mailing list
> Manycouches@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manycouches
> 