Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities

Christian Hopps <chopps(_at_)chopps(_dot_)org> wrote:
    >> Yes, funding matters.  But in my view that is secondary to the actual
    >> benefit of the meetings.  Which is why I attend.

    > +1

    > Whenever I read messages that advocate for switching to remote only
    > meetings, I have to wonder, are those people just not getting what I
    > get out of f2f meetings? I find the meetings invaluable for the reasons
    > you list above.

Oh, I get it completely!
And there is a fax effect on f2f meetings.  This is why we are willing to put
up with the hassle of travel in the first place.

My argument is as follows:  if a significant number of people can not attend
in person due to visa, travel, etc. issues, then the value of the meeting
declines.   The people that we interact with a high bandwidth become the same
set of people who can get through.  Our views become myopic.

So in the case where we can not have everyone in the same place, then it
would be fairer to have "everyone" remote.


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

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature