Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In the unlikely event that in-person meetings suddenly become practical, we
> can get creative about use of the hubs. IETFs were always a pretty silly
> way for me to meet up with people who live and work less than 10 miles from
> me. We might even have to think about adopting that approach regardless.
IETF102 was moved from SFO to Montreal due to US border issues and visa issues.
IETF111 at SFO was the second of a two-pack meeting, based upon my
understanding as a former IAOC finance subcmte member.
The deposit for IETF102 was "saved" by scheduling IETF117 in SFO.
Unless there is some radical change on both the pandemic and the visa and
border searches, I can't see IETF111 in SFO being terribly well attended.
At the same time, I suspect that we can't cheaply cancel it.
My suggestion is that we find a way to make SFO a large HUB, with a second
HUB in Europe and/or Asia.
My guess is that travel to SFO for people resident in the USA will not be a
problem. (Particularly for the Silicon Valley contingent...)
Travel within Europe can probably be assumed.
Unfortunately, the time zone considerations make things really difficult, but
maybe being in a hotel rather than in our houses could make this doable.
If we swapped the SFO and Philadelphia meeting times, maybe that would be easier.
With SFO starting "early" and joining meetings hosted in Europe before
"lunch", and then Europe staying up late and joining meetings hosted in SFO.
Maybe this is enough time to book fewer and/or smaller meeting rooms in SFO,
recoving enough expense to make the second site workable.
Could we go all the way with a third Asia (or Australian?) site, I dunno.
I think that is a lot of time zones to span.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
