Hi, John. I agree that over-emphasizing virtual interim meetings has its drawbacks, but I’d like to push back on your first point. > On 19 Jul 2017, at 21:15, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > During the plenary, there was a strong pitch made for a > significantly increased number of virtual meetings, maybe even > every few weeks.. I want to play devil's advocate and point out > the downsides: > > (1) We have usually thought that the IETF is at its best when > the vast majority of participants are designers, implementers, > and people with primary product responsibility rather than, at > the other extreme, professional standardizers. For at least > some organizations, having to commit regular blocks of time (or > very long blocks of time) to specific standards work will > trigger the same sorts of "are those people too valuable to do > this or can we commit fewer or less valuable people" reviews > that are sometimes triggered by meetings in resorts or other > exotic and/or other places that are perceived as exceptionally > expensive or attractive to tourists. Note that this is about virtual interim meetings, or as non-IETF people call them - conference calls. Blocking out one or two hours every two to three weeks is not that big a deal to employers. There is no travel approval, no flight, no hotel, no several day absence, no expense report. It’s a phone call (or Webex or some kind of WebRTC thing). This is nothing compared to a F2F meeting, where I’m gone for 5 days and have probably spent a total of one more day on all the stuff around that. Your points about cross-fertilization and English stand, but a virtual interim is a far cheaper way (for all participants and their employers) to get a 1- or 2-hour slot for a WG meeting. Yoav
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP