Re: [Mtgvenue] Disposition of the group

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 06 March 2020 14:54 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 7BD753A0868 for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 06:54:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 BCYhMw1uj_Ke for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 06:54:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 657C03A0864 for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 06:54:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C509B3897D for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 09:53:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 610F0D10 for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Mar 2020 09:54:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: mtgvenue@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <32C342C1-10C4-49C1-9913-5610CF2DE38F@puck.nether.net>
References: <9B937623-5E7C-4BF1-AC9B-9CFFD5C33F93@cooperw.in> <42D0AD47-B53F-4356-BD54-F57664F7F73B@cisco.com> <32C342C1-10C4-49C1-9913-5610CF2DE38F@puck.nether.net>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.1.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2020 09:54:19 -0500
Message-ID: <20621.1583506459@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/fob8Bdo4J6uUC1XVPWT4Szu3NN8>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] Disposition of the group
X-BeenThere: mtgvenue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for email discussion of the IAOC 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: Fri, 06 Mar 2020 14:54:24 -0000

Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
    > One thing I’m concurred about at present is how much people would like
    > to tweak as you call it the running code, with these things there is
    > always something in-flight and we should permit the things after those
    > documents to land then measure the results.  It may be helpful to
    > document this someplace so we know what meetings were held with 8718
    > and 8719.

Are you asking which meetings were planned using 8718/8719?
My understanding is that these documents codified what was essentially being
done by the IAOC meeting sub-committee (and IESG) already.
So I'm not expecting any changes because the documents were published.

    > We also may yet see a giant experiment with 107 that is unplanned.  I
    > for one would prefer to see many of the in-person meetings have less of
    > a track experience and more of a cross-area experience as I believe
    > that may be valuable.

The IETF107 was among the least conflicted for me.
The WG cancellations mean even fewer conflicts for me; almost to the point of
having time for tourism.  It appears that no group I'm part of has tried to
schedule a side meeting either.

I believe that there will be interesting things to observe.

    > It’s also possible our standards space has escaped what can be
    > practically dealt with by lone individuals who are not permanently
    > employed to engage in the space.  These don’t directly relate to
    > mtgvenue other than determining what can and will be scheduled and the
    > usual time slot conflicts that exist.

I believe that the IETF has boiled off many of the single-WG contributors.
It's not that the standards space has gotten more complex, it's that those
people who have a talent for making connections among different verticals are
just too massive to be boiled off easily.

Our average age has gone up, and I'll bet the number of years of involvement,
and the number of things we still care about.  We've become tar at the bottom
of the fraking tower :-)

I've been doing IPsec for 25 years, so I tend to know something about it, but
in the meantime, I've learnt about routing and lightweight v6
implementations.

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