ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Virtual IETFs (was: Re: Concerns about Singapore)

2016-04-12 08:33:36
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Ted Lemon <mellon(_at_)fugue(_dot_)com> wrote:

The problem with a larger virtual interim is that it doesn't replace an
IETF, and so you're adding workload but not subtracting any workload.   I
don't see the point in that.


It clocks those working groups at a higher rate.  Many people find it
easier to prioritize IETF work when there are specific deadlines or a loss
of face if work isn't done.

While the IETF determines consensus on mailing lists, there has been a
strong tendency in the last decade to focus on the physical meetings for
the next deadline, to have necessary talks, and so on.   I personally feel
that it is important to push back on this.

Discussing an issue on the mailing list suffers from people losing state on
the issue being talked about - for instance:
     Day 1: Alice reviews a draft and posts her review with a technical
point to consider.  Bob, an author, sees the email but is
                in the midst of a day-job priority.
     Day 4: Bob reads the email, rereads the draft section, and suggests a
fix.  Alice sees email, but is focused on day-job.
     Day 8: Alice refreshes her memory and responds with a point that
wasn't handled.
etc.

A benefit of virtual interims is that folks try to be up to speed and that
conversational back and forth can happen.
We do the same thing - aspirationally - on WGLCs on the mailing lists where
a two-week period is set aside to focus on a
particular draft.

Regards,
Alia



On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Tim Chown 
<tjc(_at_)ecs(_dot_)soton(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk> wrote:

On 12 Apr 2016, at 12:49, Ted Lemon <mellon(_at_)fugue(_dot_)com> wrote:

Agree about Buenos Aires.   We already do excellent virtual interims--I
think if your standard for whether we can do a virtual IETF is that virtual
interims work, we are already there.

I think that if we want to test this idea, what we need to do is
designate some future IETF virtual _now_, and then start preparing, rather
than say "oh, we should do a virtual" and then dither about when we might
be ready.   We will never be so ready that a virtual IETF feels identical
to an in-person IETF, so let's just abandon that idea and get started on
making a virtual IETF that, while different, is still a success.


Sounds interesting, if something of a big leap to attempt. Is a larger
wholly virtual, multiple WG interim meeting a next step then?

Btw where do we get the virtual T-shirt? ;)

Tim


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Tim Chown 
<tjc(_at_)ecs(_dot_)soton(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk> wrote:

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?