> On 20 Apr 2020, at 09:52, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi. I agree with Kathleen (and one or two others so far) and would >> like to try to fork this discussion a bit. > > Thank you for this. > I think that manycouches would be a better place for this discussion. > >> to do that meeting (and/or 109) online if we need to and what >> properties are important? While I think IETF 107 worked well given the >> short notice and circumstances, I don't think it should automatically >> set the pattern for what we do with non-f2f meetings in the future (for >> me, reading through the survey results reinforces that view). I >> suggest it actually should not do that. > > Q1) will we have a way to run meetecho without a central control point by > IETF108? If so, they we should use it. > >> (1) We do, or used to do, a good deal of technical level cross-protocol >> and cross-area review and interaction. At least IMO, a great deal of >> that came from people wandering into f2f WG sessions, sometimes out of >> curiosity, dragged by others, or for other reasons, on an "I'm here >> anyway and not very busy, so let's see what is going on" basis. I can > > I largely agree with you. > I think that the "light" scheduling during the original week of IETF107 meant > that BOFs got a lot more attendance from people who might have otherwise been > conflicted. This is something to be repeated. > I don't think that optimization to enable participation from the far-east > (China, Australia, NZ) worked that well. > It just wound up being "late" for Europeans. > We need to think about this again. As someone living in Sydney, it worked fine (we where +11:00 at the time). For those closer to UTC it would have worked less well (China, India etc.) -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@xxxxxxx
