--On Sunday, 16 February, 2020 07:37 +0000 "Roni Even (A)" <roni.even@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > One issue to consider about having an entirely virtual > meeting is what are the implication on participants in > different time zone. Attending few scattered session may not > be a big issue but if one wants to attend many sessions it > becomes a problem. > > My personal experience when trying to attend a QUIC WG Interim > meeting in Japan was very bad. >... Roni, As Stewart points out, different people react in different ways. However, at least in principle, attending a full-week meeting remotely should be no worse from a time zone standpoint than going in person if one just shifts onto the meeting time zone for the week. Same time zone shift as f2f, none of the physical and aggravation costs of dealing with airports, airport transit, long and often cramped plane flights, etc. The only way in which remote attendance of that type becomes more difficult from a body rhythm standpoint is if one tries to stay on one's normal schedule and activities at home and the remote schedule at the same time. I am just guessing from your explanation, but that 2AM QUIC meeting may have been a problem because you tried to say on your normal sleep (and probably eating) schedule rather that going to sleep at 5PM or earlier your time. That is, of course, another type of shift that some people find easier than others. And I've often suspected that, despite all the complaints about jet lag, at least some people find that being stuck in a large can with wings, with few external stimuli, for many hours may actually help make the shift and make it back after the meeting. But... Of course, part of the reason the IETF originally developed its rules about decisions being made on mailing lists was that, back then, a very significant fraction of the participants did not have corporate (or equivalent) support for attending week-long meetings in expensive and far-away places. What I was told when I started attending and participating at f2f meetings (after several years on mailing lists only) was that the purpose of f2f WG discussions included catching people up a bit but that they are primarily to bring out, identify, and understand a broader range of issues. Patterns have shifted -- in some cases for very good reasons such as more participation from more parts of the world. But maybe, if organizational or government policies keep a significant number of contributors from f2f attendance, we should consider learning from our own history and consider an entirely different remote participation option. That would be to shut Meetecho down entirely except to live-stream various meetings (really good scaling properties even if we don't need to return to multicast) and get really serious about the mailing list rule - not for ratification, but for accurately summarizing and following up the f2f discussions, making sure that all perspectives are aired and discussed. That would not work unless WG Chairs and ADs understood the importance of that approach and were willing to put effort into being sure that it succeeded and that both those who got to the meeting and those who, for whatever reason, did not, were treated fairly, but that might still be easier than trying to manage both in-room and long remote speaker queues in a careful and fair way. Agree with him or not, Keith Moore's recent note about interim meetings may reflect a different view of the same underlying issues. john
