Remove me from mailing list oooo
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.-------- Original message --------From:
Ted Lemon <mellon(_at_)fugue(_dot_)com> Date: 12/04/2016 2:47 pm (GMT+01:00)
To: Tim Chown <tjc(_at_)ecs(_dot_)soton(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk> Cc: ietf
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> Subject: Re: Virtual IETFs (was: Re: Concerns about
Singapore)
When I had to miss Prague, I just time-shifted for the week. Wouldn't work
for everyone, but it seemed fine to me.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Tim Chown
<tjc(_at_)ecs(_dot_)soton(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk> wrote:
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> wrote:
On 12 Apr 2016, at 12:49, Ted Lemon <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> 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> 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?