Re: [Manycouches] DOGFOOD Virtual BoF

Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> Wed, 17 April 2019 05:27 UTC

Return-Path: <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
X-Original-To: manycouches@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manycouches@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ADFE12045D for <manycouches@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 22:27:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q5cpRblM_rAq for <manycouches@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 22:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hardakers.net (mail.hardakers.net [168.150.192.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0A08120451 for <manycouches@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 22:27:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [10.0.0.3]) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 256C62798D; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 22:27:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: manycouches@ietf.org
References: <AB5A9A15-D7EC-421A-B139-19F42A71C747@fugue.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 22:27:34 -0700
In-Reply-To: <AB5A9A15-D7EC-421A-B139-19F42A71C747@fugue.com> (Ted Lemon's message of "Wed, 10 Apr 2019 08:38:49 -0400")
Message-ID: <yblmukpxku1.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manycouches/xF3bXPDOxgrkoLJWEWrZnCRlkn4>
Subject: Re: [Manycouches] DOGFOOD Virtual BoF
X-BeenThere: manycouches@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List is a design team list to identify issues that would arise should an IETF meeting ever be held with O\(1000\) 'remote' participants." <manycouches.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/manycouches>, <mailto:manycouches-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/manycouches/>
List-Post: <mailto:manycouches@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manycouches-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manycouches>, <mailto:manycouches-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 05:27:38 -0000

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> writes:

Thanks Ted for poking us (and sorry for the delay on my end).  I've been
giving this a lot of thought since our couch/comfy-chairs discussion at
IETF104.

> I would like to try out some of the stuff that Wes talked about in his presentation at
> HotRFC: rather than just doing a normal BoF, I’d like to see if we can use existing
> tools to achieve some of what Wes described.   We will still want to do some online
> video discussion, but I’d also like to try using a Wiki and an interim-only mailing
> list as the primary communication method, and do the BoF over two days to give us time
> to participate in the way Wes described.   This may fail miserably or may go well—we
> can only find out by trying.

I think that sounds like a good approach to try.  We have to experiment
somehow, so lets try it!

My thoughts last week actually turned toward: we should hold an interim
every month-ish, for a limited time (I was thinking 24hrs, but your 48
does make more sense to get at least 1 RTT per person).

But I'd also like to ask people to think about what they want to do for
that 48hrs and make each one different.  Let's collect experiment
results, essentially, and try new things every time and see what works
and what doesn't.  So, the first one is already laid out: your wiki idea
is an intriguing one, so I'm all for it!
-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI