IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Mtgvenue] Was Brisbane a success to be repeated ?

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 26 March 2024 08:19 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2BD1C14F6A8 for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 01:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x81tKVJ-msrd for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 01:18:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [IPv6:2a01:7e00:e000:2bb::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C49B4C14F690 for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 01:18:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dyas.sandelman.ca (unknown [111.65.71.184]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 079A51F448; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:18:56 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: relay.sandelman.ca; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; secure) header.d=sandelman.ca header.i=@sandelman.ca header.b="CTDQCFmF"; dkim-atps=neutral
Received: by dyas.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CA77EA191F; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 18:18:49 +1000 (AEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=sandelman.ca; s=dyas; t=1711441129; bh=xzumLOzk48SCIcEH4wY3YsRlRF/1ZMgUwFVssF0AfL4=; h=From:To:Subject:In-reply-to:References:Date:From; b=CTDQCFmFI2KUMmP7Nk30gtR7MkxbJIq2VfNx6elFil/aEMoOawTSJpvJrkk9OXmHI 9iNjwLHbqNrA8qmZbqi2CRHXSNczoa/pAM95F7/ubvZOaW8K98VA26u5slqiqI16Vr CfO92GkHigdOYV+yvCWt+F7+QUWxKUSnHpZ9uc6Y/w3861mGewrp38lS0Ecplhep0h 4yrD66Hb179j79X8eNvx3XEPEFnW1uws7+l66wMaEQuWTZYb0h7bKLkbgHLkl855ug Pcyuk3pe5NDuPE5VnZIynmPiU10ymaCQsJkML3x9RuH9IPBkPq3OCzyKGEPSHPmjcQ JZ7kQSxAday3g==
Received: from dyas (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dyas.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7F8AA1916; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 18:18:49 +1000 (AEST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, mtgvenue@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <CAPt1N1=3se3c9hP0FTTM=FY9ofz9mww92LbxXLMTDNawBg1V4Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ZgCdcWGzgESGxj8v@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <383149.1711340175@dyas> <ZgH3H4CNcUKjw0g4@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <55E67BE7-8815-4E31-87F9-F72B76D87F35@mnot.net> <CAPt1N1=NFH90xyF3yKyAL=ioVbC7-pbwxkMp_5issg+8VnTgAw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKr6gn1s4cNfL1ZEJOtOPPmQxPQtw8Skt2MR4EBmADgCeuBdCg@mail.gmail.com> <5257F71F-56E2-48EE-8081-B6C35D3A2243@mnot.net> <CAPt1N1=3se3c9hP0FTTM=FY9ofz9mww92LbxXLMTDNawBg1V4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> message dated "Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:53:34 -0400."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 18:18:49 +1000
Message-ID: <434164.1711441129@dyas>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/-mgc0k4uZP8JhAmhK39v5pJ_4o8>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] Was Brisbane a success to be repeated ?
X-BeenThere: mtgvenue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for email discussion of the IETF meeting venue selection process." <mtgvenue.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mtgvenue>, <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mtgvenue/>
List-Post: <mailto:mtgvenue@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue>, <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:19:04 -0000

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
    > Maybe that's not the IETF's job, I dunno, but it's really quite ironic that
    > the organization that actually invented the Internet hasn't solved this
    > problem yet. To be fair, I don't think we should be asking the secretariat
    > to solve it. Like, we shouldn't be saying "hey, IETF, make the hallway
    > track work online." I think that it might be useful though for us to
    > actually work on this.

I have a different take.
Having flown so far and so long,  let's make sure that the hallway track has
as high a ROI as possible.
To me, that means fewer WG session, fewer parallel tracks, shorter meetings.

That doesn't necessarily mean killing WGs, but consider that the IESG funnel
also has limited capacity, and maybe if we did fewer things in parallel, we
could increase the velocity of each item.
Or maybe documents should have appointments with the IESG, with dire
consequences if authors miss that.

    > We had a really good bar BoF about this shortly before the pandemic. We
    > didn't come anywhere near consensus. But I think it was a good discussion,
    > and I wonder if we shouldn't have more of them.

Yes.  I visited those couches last November in Prague.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-                      *I*LIKE*TRAINS*

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email