Toerless, This thread is not about meetings. It's about protocol design and operational recommendations. After all, the Internet is directly responsible for several % of world energy consumption. The exact value is still debatable: https://digital-me-up.com/2019/05/17/invisible-pollution-of-internet/ Regards Brian On 26-Jul-19 16:10, Toerless Eckert wrote: > This threads mails on CO2 and climate change are somewhat pythonesque to me... > > The IETF trying to shame itself about 3 meetings of 1000 people a year > while its product, the Internet has been the biggest reducer of energy > that i could think of in comparison of equivalent alternatives. > For the whole planet for the last few decades. > > Email/online-group-communications vs. transporting physical equivalents, > video conferencing, Home office, Telecommuning vs. train, plane automobiles > and ships ? Telemedicine, digitalization as opposed to all the paper economy > overhead, remote telemetry, industrial operations instead of shipping people, ... ??? > > Do we like all the excesses (IP) networks are used for ? Of couse not. > Should we continue to improve ? Sure! Should we eat more of our own dog food > (e.g.: virtual meetings) ? absolutely. But should we feel ashamed about the > limited transportation required to create the Internet standardization ? > Try to come up with any metric in which that would make sense. Show me any > other standards body where an equal or larger part of work gets done with > such a low-power mechanism as ASCII emails. > > IETF travel is not part of this problem. Its been a key part of developing and applying > the solution for a long time. > >
