-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On 4/12/16 04:50, Ted Lemon 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.
+1 on the approach. I'm not a huge proponent of virtual meetings, but
setting deadlines motivates us. This should not be news to anyone.
- --
Ted Faber <theodore(_dot_)v(_dot_)faber(_at_)aero(_dot_)org>
Engineering Specialist
Computer Systems Research Department
310-336-7373
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org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=fPsz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----