On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 2:22 PM Jared Mauch <jared@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 26, 2020, at 2:13 PM, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Joseph, > > > > The IETF’s current practice of holding three in-person meetings per year is not sustainable. If not today, at some time in the future, the IETF will be forced to hold a fully on-line meeting. This may be motivated by: > > > > • The next public health issue > > • Environmental concerns > > • Geopolitical or visa concerns > > • Economic concerns > > > > Since we are going to have to learn how to hold an on-line meeting sooner or later, why not now? > > > > Ron, > > I think we should try it as an experiment and add a virtual interim before we’re forced to. I don’t know what the next N-days until travel to YVR hold, but as of right now I plan to be there. > > I think organizing something planned even as a test would be interesting though. I'd like to point out that many many WGs have held virtual interim meetings - it seems that using these as a datapoint would be a good first step. I've participated in a bunch of them, and have found them to be not very effective -- more effective than not meeting at all, but not by much. > > I think it’s also important that WGs use their lists efficiently as well. > Indeed. W > - Jared -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf
