With current technology, virtual meetings are markedly inferior to physical meetings. I oppose any reduction from three such meetings a year, when they can be held, as such a change will make the IETF less effective. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 1:14 AM Loa Andersson <loa@xxxxx> wrote: > > Fred, et.al., > > inline please > > On 03/02/2021 02:36, Erik Kline wrote: > > +manycouches@xxxxxxxx > > > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 10:31 AM Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Looking at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-shmoo/ballot/, I noted that there is no mailing list for this. Had there been one, this note would have been posted to it. I apologize for the wide distribution. > >> > >> I can see setting up a policy for meetings that are cancelled by Force Majuere, but the fact that we have had such doesn’t call for stopping having meetings. The fact is that face-to-face meetings have value - people can get to know each other and set up a social basis for discussion, if nothing else. I can see scaling back - our European colleagues find the summer meeting timing awkward at best. But I don;’t see the temporary effect of having a global pandemic as justification for simply shutting down to mailing lists - which would be the likely effect of failing to meet. > >> > >> So yes, I think we would do well to meet for IETF 111 and on. > > I agree, but think this is IETF 112, in the best case. > > /Loa > > >> > >> Sent from my iPad > > > > -- > > Loa Andersson email: loa@xxxxx > Senior MPLS Expert loa.pi.nu@xxxxxxxxx > Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64 >
