Mary Barnes <mary.h.barnes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> or two of the face to face meetings for the WG. I would posit that
> these meetings can be equally as effective as face to face meetings in
> making progress. Once we started those meetings, we didn't find that we
> needed f2f interim meetings. There of course, the timezone issue with
> these sorts of meetings, but that can be managed. But, we do have all
> the tools to make work between meetings more effective and more open to
> remote participants that I don't think we're taking advantage of.
For the remote participant, the most important thing that the physical
meeting does it to establish a time zone, and force everyone else to conform
to that. Additionally, by removing people from their office, it removes a
whole host of "distractions": bosses, spouses, kids, commutes,...
One of the things that I think we could try is to have a meeting with dozens
to hundreds of locations.
It would still be 5 days long.
It would have a primary location in order to establish a time zone for it.
It would have a schedule, and agenda and conflict resolution.
It's just that I would go stay in a nearby hotel and/or conference center,
and I'd have to have lunch or do social events with nearby people.
It would an experiment.
The hardest thing for me, when attending remotely, is convincing my kid (who
wakes up at 5am regularly), is that I'm "at work" at that time, and that
when it's time for me to sleep (in remote time zone), that I really do need
to sleep.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature