Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities

I've done remote meetings going back to the days of when we had to
make mbone work first. (it worked once!!!)
I've probably done a dozen or so remote meetings.

Loa Andersson <loa(_at_)pi(_dot_)nu> wrote:
    > Let me first say that I very much appreciate the effort made by
    > e.g. the meetecho people. The experience of listening to a meeting on
    > meetecho and sitting in the room listening is very close. All the time
    > until someone that sits in the middle of the room don't care to go the
    > mike to make a comment, but just shout it out. When this happens you
    > just don't lose the comment, but you also lose much of the context for
    > the continued discussion.

Right, so this is why it's better for everyone to be remote.

    > It quite often happens (it has happened to me) that someone notify the
    > chairs that "there is someone wanting to say something on the
    > meetecho", only when that happens that particular discussion is already
    > "taken to the list".

Yes, bad chair discipline.

    > But an IETF meeting is so much more than the moderate number of hours
    > you spend in meeting rooms, if you participate remotely you miss what
    > is probably the most important aspect of an IETF F2F - the 10-15
    > corridor meetings you have each day.

I totally agree.

    > I'd say cancel SFO and move to place where we all have an equal chance
    > to attend, even if you have made a business trip to Iran or somewhere
    > else in the Middle East, and where we don't have to give out passwords
    > to e.g. laptops that may contain business critical information.

If we can do that, I agree. Lets do that.

If we can't outright cancel, but can renegotiate significantly, my suggestion
stands.  Move the meeting and make SFO a US left-coast remote hub.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature