Re: [vmeet] timeframe

John Leslie <> Fri, 15 May 2009 00:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6434A3A6D7C for <>; Thu, 14 May 2009 17:02:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.913
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.913 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.686, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cUT07EyPGvJm for <>; Thu, 14 May 2009 17:02:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D6613A708C for <>; Thu, 14 May 2009 17:02:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 104) id 90DAD33C66; Thu, 14 May 2009 20:04:26 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 20:04:26 -0400
From: John Leslie <>
Message-ID: <20090515000426.GC70521@verdi>
References: <20090507175356.GG32848@verdi> <> <> <20090513025653.GD14375@verdi> <> <20090514221220.GA70521@verdi> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Subject: Re: [vmeet] timeframe
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF remote participation meeting services discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 00:02:58 -0000

Dave CROCKER <> wrote:
> John Leslie wrote:
>> Our timeframe is too short to rule out "hacks" for Stockholm. For
>> the IETF after that, we should be able to automate things.
> The timeframe for vmeet is whatever we set it to be.

   Not meaning to contradict, but Russ Housley has committed to make
the Stockholm IETF week "remote-participation friendly". I do believe
he is hoping from some assistance from us.

> My own participation came from suggesting that we work towards
> replacing at least one IETF week with virtual meetings.

   A noble goal, according to my bank account! ;^)

   (Do note, however, that the Secretariat is signing contracts for

> There is no way that is happening immediately. It's a goal, but we are
> not trying to meet it instantly.


> Since there already are virtual interim meetings, here too we do not
> have to have an "immediate" deadline.

   I wasn't thinking of a "deadline" -- more a "milestone".

> That's why I think we can and should target capabilities beyond what
> the IETF currently use, balancing against easy, reliable use so that
> folks will not feel that it is a burden to participate.

   Of course, if we're _really_ thinking "after 2013," we can afford
to concentrate more on open-standard tools than on currently-marketed
proprietary tools...

   Maybe we need to "formalize" some informal goals / milestones?

John Leslie <>