Re: Virtual IETFs (was: Re: Concerns about Singapore)
2016-04-12 08:42:51
On 12 Apr 2016, at 14:22, 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.
Well, there may be a number of WGs that wish to progress their work a bit more
briskly, or have one or more specific topics that need prompt discussion, and
use an interim meeting to achieve that. So I’m not sure it’s adding to
workload, rather it may allow us to be more efficient. But the main issue with
any virtual meeting is timezones. There’s really no way to deal with that
problem satisfactorily.
Tim
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Tim Chown
<tjc(_at_)ecs(_dot_)soton(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk
<mailto:tjc(_at_)ecs(_dot_)soton(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk>> wrote:
On 12 Apr 2016, at 12:49, Ted Lemon <mellon(_at_)fugue(_dot_)com
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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?
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: Concerns about Singapore, (continued)
- Message not available
- Re: Concerns about Singapore, Tim Chown
- Re: Concerns about Singapore, Ted Lemon
- Message not available
- Virtual IETFs (was: Re: Concerns about Singapore), Tim Chown
- Re: Virtual IETFs (was: Re: Concerns about Singapore), Ted Lemon
- Re: Virtual IETFs (was: Re: Concerns about Singapore), Alia Atlas
- Re: Virtual IETFs (was: Re: Concerns about Singapore),
Tim Chown <=
- Re: Virtual IETFs (was: Re: Concerns about Singapore), Ted Lemon
- Re: Concerns about Singapore, Theodore V Faber
- Meetecho was Re: Concerns about Singapore, lloyd.wood
- Re: Meetecho was Re: Concerns about Singapore, Jared Mauch
- Re: Meetecho was Re: Concerns about Singapore, Mikael Abrahamsson
- Message not available
- Re: Meetecho was Re: Concerns about Singapore, Tim Chown
- Re: Concerns about Singapore, chopps
- Re: Concerns about Singapore, Harald Alvestrand
- Re: Concerns about Singapore, Dave Crocker
- Re: Concerns about Singapore, John G. Scudder
|
|
|