Re: [Mtgvenue] Was Brisbane a success to be repeated ?
Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 26 March 2024 00:58 UTC
Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
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 1C2F9C14F68C for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:58:40 -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=mnot.net header.b="t4dvoyXx"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b="wltWoqKO"
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 TCO4OuGDjfo4 for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:58:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fhigh6-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh6-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.157]) (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 7924CC14F61A for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:58:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailfhigh.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 158C81140152; Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:58:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:58:34 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnot.net; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1711414714; x=1711501114; bh=x9eDuYRPlMuLrfSQ7THnTLa/6DE2OEhT0Uv3UkU3RTE=; b= t4dvoyXxL2m1Os5FzXVIR6M/5K7mYelvsIfY6czp23OVT5/xIi0vEy/iEmYRANWo 0+6Ln9Nqo3hcZbUFfXJbRR+0ztGSFieUSpm70sna3PhCAWI3lZSNqxGqyTZg74Nq DdZiE00E/RbIesZjPuuHrD/rRs8MRuiH/tJB5/2wZWSdJV/iDcZtLSPBxQaPvmMC hFae3RuTiLhUO+CALmBg46hAJg6/6ZIyjBZ8PDhmRhCUJclLO05XbaWQ6YEtD14N bvBX160OPQUmQchhnFYBj+6lpSzqPr9co7LV3TEMG2Q7IS1xRaiL/l4R4T31Ulmt xOscpD/vujxjXEbnAVRb4Q==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t=1711414714; x= 1711501114; bh=x9eDuYRPlMuLrfSQ7THnTLa/6DE2OEhT0Uv3UkU3RTE=; b=w ltWoqKOlCAoLQtiwe7NHXSD/TSVwlkoA+3Oglri57dRuSR97Me2DZ1wPUrp2Q/aU bCqo9e5o4WqjVgt8sm2kk6GSxSSZxns7lIIg8+ob5oSbGWdRQu+Jxy+xz5/1yx7c p7gYu9ZiMUuKPZ/YU445hKOGHh0RUU6VD/+lWFhSzSOw8hjGAJHibrnMZupu3COC q5ZVnrjKr2dCQT6nXQ5wgwMt9cDBl1AHvtYz8M+zt0U3lS2By0BuKXbGKeqLKxP1 lObr1+9mlyCpUtFsydP/2xew6mG9foVagWVh+K9b++N+FIYfHoI55rMUPeV/Uug/ 05hJj0YATqS4AA0rTuJAQ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:uR0CZrGNvbn-T2y0m_J96o8jK6_-nqby4I99dfGf0T2Qj749Uah3tw> <xme:uR0CZoV2JMhr3foFdWm3vcTEHlP0LkBuKmaIZ4OZP43ZfiaHt9P55LYRsEplthWuB AR33subt-YDghihzA>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:uR0CZtJM_olN1CB6-xPq1n9ML_cg1o-xZaxHG9D8jkdJC17qKTsX1VOPxvv3hH2CnvJ1Np1QY93OApw4mb95DGClospkHlHxfOthfzednW6uHW5IOyhYwWcL>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvledrudduvddgvdekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpegtggfuhfgjffevgffkfhfvofesth hqmhdthhdtjeenucfhrhhomhepofgrrhhkucfpohhtthhinhhghhgrmhcuoehmnhhothes mhhnohhtrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeevhfdtteefudfgheevudeilefhgf dtteefheetieejteduledutdefteekieegtdenucffohhmrghinhepmhhnohhtrdhnvght pdhivghtfhdrohhrghenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrih hlfhhrohhmpehmnhhothesmhhnohhtrdhnvght
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:uR0CZpHNxmwS-8a_xa6Wn6-Gz3A4L3YDHUfnv60xEvChJuaYAVC1tw> <xmx:uR0CZhWRRWkPR9yJdwoeLtj2IbQbrhlF-6_aTDBRJoVWYghnU6RFug> <xmx:uR0CZkNAOsnQb8TLpi7awZBabN0uth_68Lln96252_IetOnQrE4dog> <xmx:uR0CZg0g680KnNauQ1uc3sAsD1CcqPlVAXIxI5G1T5lTaHWe7wboQQ> <xmx:uh0CZnzDCZ6Wpvv6rXvpjkdG7ISQWCv_AxKCPhbg2lEmTR7olaVcIQ>
Feedback-ID: ie6694242:Fastmail
Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:58:32 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.500.171.1.1\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1=3se3c9hP0FTTM=FY9ofz9mww92LbxXLMTDNawBg1V4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 11:58:29 +1100
Cc: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>, mtgvenue@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6ACE5809-0DE1-4348-AE5A-D162E32C0FDA@mnot.net>
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>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.500.171.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/8nDi-Gn1-rO1punMVwNLAboXHnI>
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 00:58:40 -0000
Sure, don't disagree. But I think we have to recognise that it may just be the case that the Internet can't solve every problem or replace every human activity. I'll show myself out... > On 26 Mar 2024, at 11:53, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote: > > Mark, forgive me for pushing back on your pushing back, but (I think?) we get that. We know it's easier to get stuff done in the hallway track. That's why I flew to Brisbane. And it played out exactly that way, as it always does. > > My question is, do we know why this is, and is there anything we can do about it? > > 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. > > 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. > > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 8:38 PM Mark Nottingham <mnot=40mnot.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > > On 26 Mar 2024, at 10:59, George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org> wrote: > > > > I would support this also being modified to "2 f2f 1 fully online or > > online-mostly" and then after a few years "1 f2f and 2 fully online or > > online-mostly" and by personal preference I suspect it's where I'm > > heading anyway. If we formalised it, we'd be able to reduce some costs > > to the org, because we'd be in smaller venues with less overhead. I > > also believe we should be pruning the WG and doing less in parallel, > > for less long, less days. (I am not entirely stupid and I know > > wielding the chopper will be very unpopular) > > I'm going to push back on this, a bit. > > I'm also involved in the W3C, which has two major meetings a year. Granted, one of them is a bit smaller / more administrative, but it's very noticeable how much harder it is to build relationships, maintain them, and make spontaneous progress there. > > The hallway track is important; socialising the group is extremely important. This can't be done online, unfortunately, and I don't see any way to realistically do it; notably, the attempts to replace it were the biggest failures during COVID. > > Just food for thought... > > Cheers, > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ > > _______________________________________________ > Mtgvenue mailing list > Mtgvenue@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Was Brisbane a success to be repea… John Levine
- [Mtgvenue] Was Brisbane a success to be repeated ? Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Was Brisbane a success to be repea… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Was Brisbane a success to be repea… Mark Nottingham
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Was Brisbane a success to be repea… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Was Brisbane a success to be repea… Vittorio Bertola
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Was Brisbane a success to be repea… Mark Nottingham
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Was Brisbane a success to be repea… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Was Brisbane a success to be repea… Dirk Kutscher
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Was Brisbane a success to be repea… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Was Brisbane a success to be repea… Eliot Lear
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Was Brisbane a success to be repea… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Was Brisbane a success to be repea… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Was Brisbane a success to be repea… George Michaelson
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Was Brisbane a success to be repea… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Was Brisbane a success to be repea… Dirk Kutscher
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Was Brisbane a success to be repea… George Michaelson
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Was Brisbane a success to be repea… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Was Brisbane a success to be repea… Jay Daley
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Was Brisbane a success to be repea… Jay Daley
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Was Brisbane a success to be repea… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Was Brisbane a success to be repea… Bob Hinden
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Was Brisbane a success to be repea… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Was Brisbane a success to be repea… Mark Nottingham
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Was Brisbane a success to be repea… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Was Brisbane a success to be repea… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Was Brisbane a success to be repea… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Was Brisbane a success to be repea… John Levine