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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 26 March 2024 00:54 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
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 CCA21C18DBB3 for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:54:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.904
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.904 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com
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 TL09tj96gjct for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf2c.google.com (mail-qv1-xf2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3969DC18DB83 for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:54:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf2c.google.com with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-6964b1c529cso45141826d6.0 for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:54:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1711414451; x=1712019251; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=uN2X7eNmNqhGJyM2SJcUym4GX3NN1xFPSbYoKCSRBMU=; b=lGaH/7NE9EWPLUVe5ETBxEMetUl8gZIPnJAdjOSCbmVm+ZNtixvvPNpW+ia8GT5ZIw 6F+vuKBHluI0B0zm3IDkQDbQRUlFkTyOzzCOqMBkRK2OY/yxPf3mNVh8FWov1V+66h0c OlJUTaz9fNgnUnk2pdXP+Sp1ftDOCBKH6u0HNVnq3jGqTjYpKeGImGWTQx7J3og/tIMl 6TlJJQKnjeyG14xL7J/SX4oRTVml1ZMTY7eqaeLM2Za5x6NAxGSwgnNGEmyluTGMqP4v +1JU1JfeWGuXznPgJ9SdjlGGFvUsQxOdGPwcGjoYCpxDohNWhvNPlKMuh/j/UDb1ltD3 hISQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1711414451; x=1712019251; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=uN2X7eNmNqhGJyM2SJcUym4GX3NN1xFPSbYoKCSRBMU=; b=W6TxQ/m1Z2iv1yy9hwIw/UyYzINi75VTbpYPs24U7uCyinWgErBioDgIspufL6gve4 TR6ZdZ2y9SJwwu7QCmijETLHuLlcRg7mJTQVuCRi4Ijt+DOAdVQTcx5mFLXtDdXbWuPb deADjgXVTWq5YxovWObW17TQkfDFkt/u87cuQfrOURyYbg/MDVqKo1ikbbhvP1TstRiK 0x13VjcSCwGcqS/GOmXrm0uUsztj7Pbw9v/ptQiS8qSG+pw5YdVuA5eLaG1EeoHFPiE6 pYivNkQ0Xo/6YpSWpn+/QCQhny8R4wM03i/A+Zc9jlMS68fttpBla/ewDNUZ+WA6JoDC Q1bw==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXqK5Z+4PCS9BGTHj9CuOQKjUSnA6sEuRN6v555UWeTKFgIA9P8KojY6JSGnmGF+cjzfCNcyW+le4k+YvYudwKuhw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YySfaGvyPaDbSepc7gU6+8YWfByFLxsoWe5Fw15kXAPNmBIRWfA B2yhZEpHupLq+YmZAw7aXuTZo9M0SU06tkwoiHeo8XT/mLDEV1gG2bSZwDAbtVX/To4rJ8AAi4K YonecdGr8DGoVguNL0J82xhjwqcyppyQFlbQH7g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHwftINuO6fd1D/09d2U3IK8N4lOMlDPGe0KHH8MBKo3XGNelfAyCm8fIQoF+egRtIDHCpNA6bgG/jP01b7+3Q=
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5ba9:0:b0:696:48e5:5b8b with SMTP id 9-20020ad45ba9000000b0069648e55b8bmr1285448qvq.21.1711414450818; Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:54:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
In-Reply-To: <5257F71F-56E2-48EE-8081-B6C35D3A2243@mnot.net>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:53:34 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1=3se3c9hP0FTTM=FY9ofz9mww92LbxXLMTDNawBg1V4Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot=40mnot.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>, mtgvenue@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000067afaa061485badb"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/eKJsVOOQ9cp-jWBC4cI5JMFtnls>
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 00:54:15 -0000

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
>