On 27-Dec-23 18:14, Shashank Yadav wrote:
Well yes, meetings happening where the internet has developed is quite understood and explains the US/EU back and forth. But by "prison of geography" I am referring to the respective increase and decrease in participation when meetings are in (and not in) a particular geography. And this applies to the US/EU participation as well. I guess what I was getting at in my previous email is how different are the physical vs online meetings in terms of participation incentives etc - and if the online mode as primary meeting mechanism does produce the most overall participation, why not just do that?
Because quantity is not quality. Both for creativity and for dispute resolution, face face to face meetings are widely viewed as more effective. The hybrid model, which we were effectively using to a large extent before the pandemic, seems to be the correct compromise. We've been continuously adapting IETF methods and procedures as the Internet has got better at supporting remote collaboration, and I'm sure that will continue. (Because of sustainability considerations, some people believe we should reduce the frequency of face-to-face meetings, and I am sure discussion of that will continue.) These issues have hashed out in the shmoo WG for several years, and the NomCom impact was hashed out on the eligibility-discuss list. I suggest reviewing the mailing lists and RFCs. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/manycouches/ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/eligibility-discuss/ RFC 9137 RFC 9311 RFC 9389 RFC 9400 RFC 9501 Brian
