Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Singapore]

Rich Kulawiec <rsk(_at_)gsp(_dot_)org> writes:

> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 07:57:53AM -0400, chopps(_at_)chopps(_dot_)org wrote:
> > Your suggestion of not having them would subtract value from the process
> > though. I don't see the win.
> The win is that all of the time and effort and expense (all of which
> are finite resources) that go into those could be directed elsewhere.
The meetings and their fees are income positive, they aren't a drain on
resource, the opposite in fact.

> These meetings select for a highly limited (by circumstance, by necessity,
> and by choice) subset.  And once upon a time, when the 'net was much
> younger and more limited in terms of geography and scope, that might
> have been alright, because the subset mapped fairly well onto the larger
> set of people involved in networking.  But that's no longer true.
> And the difficulties/expense of travel are only going to get worse
> for the forseeable future: they're not going to get better.
I think it would be useful to get some real data to measure exactly how
highly limited that subset of people are. Perhaps as a simple first
shot we could take email sent to IETF working group mailing lists over
the last year, and cross reference that against the registrations lists
of the last 3 IETFs and see what percentage of people doing IETF work
cannot or choose not to attend the on-site meetings?

Thanks,
Chris.


> ---rsk

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature