I think there was a story like that about football players too. However, I have not had the same experience you have. I think that zero f2f meetings is bad, and Iim not advocating that. But it is quite possible to be effective in a voice chat, and even more so in a video chat. The idea of a virtual meeting would be to try to set things up so that peoples schedules are cleared and we can have informal meetings as well as formal ones.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ted, you missed my point. Yes, I can arrange a call with the relevant people. And I frequently do.
It is harder, but that would be acceptable.
The important part is that such calls are MUCH less effective than face-to-face discussions. There are lots of well-known reasons for this.
And no, inc ase it was not obvious, without the face-to-face meeting, there is no way to arrange such face-to-face meetings.
Yes, we should work to make remote participation more effective. Doing away with the face-to-face meetings reminds me of the old SF story of the ballet dancers who were forced to dance wearing extra weights, to be "fair" to the less talented dancers.
Yours,
Joel
On 4/12/16 12:00 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
This is all true, but the idea that it can't be replicated online is
silly. How did you arrange to have lunch with these people? You went
looking for them, rounded them up, and sat down to lunch. You can do
that online as well.
It is certainly true that random conversation in the halls can also
happen and lead to useful consequences, but having taken heavy advantage
of "running into people" in BA, I can tell you that a lot of it was
deliberate, and the parts that weren't probably would have been
triggered by WG meetings even if they hadn't been triggered by just
running into someone familiar in the lobby of the Hilton.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I believe that there would be a real cost in moving to remote-only
meetings. Even putting aside the time zone difficulties, and the
reduced effectiveness of in-meeting interaction, there are aspects
of face-to-face interaction taht current remote technologies simply
do not capture.
It was very helpful in BA (and at many previous IETF meetings) to be
able to find time to talk with a small number of people concerned
about an aspect of one working group. I did that over meals,
breaks, etc. It sorted out issues far more effectively than email
conversations (in several cases, we had tried to sort it out via
email. 10 minutes face-to-face clarified what was being missed, and
found a good path forward.)
Even in-meeting, when the meeting works well it takes advantage of
the nature of face-to-face interactions. Admittedly, many sessions
do not need this, but many do.
Yours,
Joel
On 4/12/16 10:09 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 8:37 AM, <chopps@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:chopps@xxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:chopps@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:chopps@xxxxxxxxxx>>> wrote:
Rich Kulawiec <rsk@xxxxxxx <mailto:rsk@xxxxxxx>
<mailto:rsk@xxxxxxx <mailto:rsk@xxxxxxx>>> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 07:57:53AM
-0400,chopps@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:chopps@xxxxxxxxxx><mailto:chopps@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:chopps@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>> Your suggestion of not having them would subtract value
from the process
>> though. I don't see the win.
>
> The win is that all of the time and effort and expense
(all of which
> are finite resources) that go into those could be
directed elsewhere.
The meetings and their fees are income positive, they
aren't a drain on
resource, the opposite in fact.
[MB] I would agree when it comes to dollars, but people (i.e., the
effort to which Rich is referring) are also a resource and
volunteers do
the work. If the only volunteers you get are from large
companies, I
think the IETF does lose. With improved remote participation,
individuals that aren't sponsored by large companies can continue to
contribute. Without it, we become ineffective. [/MB]
> These meetings select for a highly limited (by
circumstance, by necessity,
> and by choice) subset. And once upon a time, when the
'net was much
> younger and more limited in terms of geography and scope,
that might
> have been alright, because the subset mapped fairly well
onto the larger
> set of people involved in networking. But that's no
longer true.
> And the difficulties/expense of travel are only going to
get worse
> for the forseeable future: they're not going to get better.
I think it would be useful to get some real data to measure
exactly how
highly limited that subset of people are. Perhaps as a
simple first
shot we could take email sent to IETF working group mailing
lists over
the last year, and cross reference that against the
registrations lists
of the last 3 IETFs and see what percentage of people doing
IETF work
cannot or choose not to attend the on-site meetings?
[MB] There was a separate list of registered remote attendees
for this
recent meeting. You can take a look there and see a number of
long time
contributors and some WG chairs (myself included) that have
participated
remotely. The very reason I did not go was due to lack of funding.
There are a number of us that have contributed significantly
over the
past 15-30 years that would like to continue to do so but as
independent
consultants, some of these trips are just not fiscally
possible. I went
to Yokohama so couldn't even entertain the idea of attending the
meeting
in BA without a sponsor. And, I seriously doubt I can
continue as a
WG chair if I can't get funding in the future. So, in the end, the
current model self selects and benefits the larger companies over
individuals that really do want to do work for the "good of the
Internet" but just can't justify the expense. [/MB]
Thanks,
Chris.
>
> ---rsk