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

Hi,

I agree that f2f meetings are best.
If not for the ad-hoc meetings, many of us would have
stopped going to IETFs a long time ago.  The official
meeting slots have devolved into status updates and slide presentations.

But don't think for a second that 20 hours of travel each way and thousands
of dollars in expenses are easy on anybody, As the remote tools keep getting
better, many of us will be asking if IETF travel is really worth it.


Andy




On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Joel M. Halpern 
<jmh(_at_)joelhalpern(_dot_)com>
wrote:

Ted, you missed my point.  Yes, I can arrange a call with the relevant
people.  And I frequently do.
It is harder, but that would be acceptable.

The important part is that such calls are MUCH less effective than
face-to-face discussions.  There are lots of well-known reasons for this.

And no, inc ase it was not obvious, without the face-to-face meeting,
there is no way to arrange such face-to-face meetings.

Yes, we should work to make remote participation more effective.  Doing
away with the face-to-face meetings reminds me of the old SF story of the
ballet dancers who were forced to dance wearing extra weights, to be "fair"
to the less talented dancers.

Yours,
Joel

On 4/12/16 12:00 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:

This is all true, but the idea that it can't be replicated online is
silly.   How did you arrange to have lunch with these people?   You went
looking for them, rounded them up, and sat down to lunch.   You can do
that online as well.

It is certainly true that random conversation in the halls can also
happen and lead to useful consequences, but having taken heavy advantage
of "running into people" in BA, I can tell you that a lot of it was
deliberate, and the parts that weren't probably would have been
triggered by WG meetings even if they hadn't been triggered by just
running into someone familiar in the lobby of the Hilton.


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Joel M. Halpern 
<jmh(_at_)joelhalpern(_dot_)com
<mailto:jmh(_at_)joelhalpern(_dot_)com>> wrote:

    I believe that there would be a real cost in moving to remote-only
    meetings.  Even putting aside the time zone difficulties, and the
    reduced effectiveness of in-meeting interaction, there are aspects
    of face-to-face interaction taht current remote technologies simply
    do not capture.
    It was very helpful in BA (and at many previous IETF meetings) to be
    able to find time to talk with a small number of people concerned
    about an aspect of one working group.  I did that over meals,
    breaks, etc.  It sorted out issues far more effectively than email
    conversations (in several cases, we had tried to sort it out via
    email.  10 minutes face-to-face clarified what was being missed, and
    found a good path forward.)

    Even in-meeting, when the meeting works well it takes advantage of
    the nature of face-to-face interactions.  Admittedly, many sessions
    do not need this, but many do.

    Yours,
    Joel

    On 4/12/16 10:09 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:



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

             Thanks,
             Chris.


              >
              > ---rsk