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

On Apr 12, 2016, at 10:09 AM, Mary Barnes 
<mary(_dot_)h(_dot_)barnes(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:



On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 8:37 AM,  <chopps(_at_)chopps(_dot_)org 
<mailto:chopps(_at_)chopps(_dot_)org>> wrote:

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

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 07:57:53AM -0400, chopps(_at_)chopps(_dot_)org 
<mailto: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.
[MB] I would agree when it comes to dollars, but people (i.e., the effort to 
which Rich is referring) are also a resource and volunteers do the work.  If 
the only volunteers you get are from large companies, I think the IETF does 
lose.  With improved remote participation, individuals that aren't sponsored 
by large companies can continue to contribute.  Without it, we become 
ineffective.  [/MB]

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?

[MB] There was a separate list of registered remote attendees for this recent 
meeting. You can take a look there and see a number of long time contributors 
and some WG chairs (myself included) that have participated remotely.  The 
very reason I did not go was due to lack of funding.  There are a number of 
us that have contributed significantly over the past 15-30 years that would 
like to continue to do so but as independent consultants, some of these trips 
are just not fiscally possible.  I went to Yokohama so couldn't even 
entertain the idea of attending the meeting in BA without a sponsor.    And, 
I seriously doubt I can continue as a WG chair if I can't get funding in the 
future.  So, in the end, the current model self selects and benefits the 
larger companies over individuals that really do want to do work for the 
"good of the Internet" but just can't justify the expense.   [/MB]


I myself am on that remote list. I've heard the B.A. meeting was hard for many 
people (although this is anecdotal), and is a separate issue of contention for 
some. This is why I suggested the last 3 meetings, and a year of email so that 
the sample was large enough to not run in to particulars for each attendee who 
may not have been able to attend all, but rather some meetings.

I also think we have ways to make meetings more affordable, but Rich indicated 
this was only one of many concerns.

I think we need to look at a good sampling of the data at this point.

Thanks,
Chris.


Thanks,
Chris.


---rsk

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail