Hi John, > On 9 Jan 2021, at 06:39, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> .. > > Eliot, it isn't just convenience. More virtual meetings means > more timezone problems and some people being excluded from the > discussions even if only on a rotating basis. This is what I was alluding to. Yes, there’s a cost. > And, however good > the minutes or ability to play back recorded video, it is not as > good as being able to make comments or insert an issue or > perspective while the meeting is going on... and the topic might > get lost by the next meeting. So, whether by email, github, > or something else (a separate topic and taking up most of the > thread), mechanisms that allow input to be provided and > discussed asynchronously [1] tend to work out better for > high-quality participation of consideration of issues than many > / frequent interim meetings. I am not suggesting an “either/or”, but rather an amelioration of the partitioning associated with people picking their preferred mode of communication outside of meetings, so that any perceived formative discussions don’t go on too long without being picked up in an interactive discussion. As you point out, there’s a price for that amelioration, which impacts people differently. Absent such an amelioration, our alternatives seem to be to live with that partitioning or impose a common platform on everyone, making one group or another quite unhappy. In an organization driven by rough consensus, that seems to be a challenge. Do you see it differently? Eliot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
