On 5/16/22 09:20, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
In other words, any form of meeting puts someone at a disadvantage, but none is "exclusionary in nature" - they just change the set of people who get a disadvantage.
While I don't inherently disagree with this statement, it's an easy (and dubious) leap from that statement to "we can't, or shouldn't try, to improve over the current way we do meetings".
Hybrid is possibly the least exclusionary form, as it allows people to choose between two modes and promotes a compromise between them.
I don't think this follows. There's a fallacy in presenting a false choice (as if there's only possible dimension to meeting format with only two values), picking one of those few choices, and labeling it as an overall superlative.
For example, the costs associated with attending in-person meetings really do matter, even if the meetings are hybrid and there are fee waivers for remote participation.
But I don't think there's a best answer. I think instead that it's important to keep inclusion in mind in all aspects of IETF, and to actively solicit input from all kinds of potential participants, and be aware that conditions will change over time that will result in both new constraints and new opportunities.
Keith
