Hi,
To minimise the chances of a ‘Singapore’ happening again it would seem prudent
to
a) re-use previous successful meeting venues for the bulk of our meetings (say,
every 5 in 6 meetings); this is one criteria for meeting selection as it stands
anyway; that list might include venues like Prague, Berlin, Vancouver, etc.;
we’d need to be clear in what ‘successful’ means - the meeting feedback forms
provide one such mechanism;
b) be transparent at an early stage about where new venues might be, whether by
country or city, so there is a fair chance for people to give feedback; of
course, how such feedback is weighed is an open question, but at least it would
be there, and the IAOC can then make a decision ‘eyes wide open’.
In such a system, Buenos Aires would have been a ‘1 in 6’ venue. In that light,
I’d note that many people have said how much they enjoyed Buenos Aires as a
meeting place. And while the IAOC probably feel rather down over the comments
about Singapore, they should be praised for going out on something of a limb in
making the Buenos Aires selection. (And I’d add that the enthusiasm and
helpfulness of the LACNIC hosts was also fantastic.)
In terms of virtual meetings, I’d suggest we try to hold more interim WG
meetings, some completely virtually, and learn how to make those better. If we
can regularly hold good quality wholly virtual interim meetings, then we can
consider whether the same technology might be used for a larger meeting.
Tim
On 12 Apr 2016, at 00:54, Ted Lemon <mellon(_at_)fugue(_dot_)com> wrote:
While I do not think it's true that we can entirely get away without doing
in-person meetings, I do agree with you that we can do better at doing remote
meetings. Perhaps we should let this unfortunate event drive us to make the
attempt.
If we were to attempt such a thing, how do you think it would work?