Subject: Re: Registration details for IETF 108

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2020 11:53:19 -0400

Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > On 2020-05-31, at 22:54, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:
    >>
    >> If I recall correctly, I raised a point a few months before 2013 about
    >> the IETF allowing free access to its meetings through the Internet.  I
    >> could not help noticing that there is now a required fee to access the
    >> next IETF meeting.

    > Note that, for WG/RG chairs, this is likely to create a weird
    > disincentive against scheduling their online meetings in the IETF week
    > — we might get better turnout by scheduling a (no-cost-to-attend)
    > interim (*).

Yeah, I very much agree.

If my WG wasn't already completely virtual, I would definitely avoid
having a meeting.
(Virtual Interims being discouraged during IETF week, we had already planned
not to have a July meeting since it overlaps, having a June and August
meeting already)

    > I’d hate it if that loophole gets recognized and there is an attempt to close it.

..

    > (*) That was already a consideration, as the IETF week is likely to
    > have more conflicts than an interim.  And there is the very real issue
    > of web conference fatigue, which will hit the tightly scheduled week.

I'm not happy with the conflicts that have been created with this schedule.
Even with the 107 meetings stretched across April, I had some conflicts,
because everyone wants 1400UTC (07:00 PDT,10:00 EDT,16:00CET).
But, I thought that actually we got a huge amount more done.

    > If enough meetings are moved over to interims out of those three
    > considerations, only BOFs are likely to remain — which makes the
    > paygate even more interesting.

    > If the situation remains that we can’t take hums are online BOFs, it’s
    > even less clear why one would not simply watch the YouTube video, which
    > can be done at 2x to save some time.

Well, we can ask questions during the event, but even better is to watch the
video, hit pause, and write an email.   In some ways, this is even better :-)

I agree with having the BOFs¸ plenary, *dispatch and new WG meetings that
week.  Maybe a few more with widespread interest (6man/spring could use the
entire week actually)

PHB has been suggesting that we should intentionally just go to Youtube
presentations, and I've been a bit hesistant to suggest that because I don't
want "production quality" to get in the way of people presenting.

But, a "watch party" has a certain appeal, and it also SIGNIFICANTLY deals
with much of the disparities that some parts of the world (including most of
rural Canada, and most of the US-fly-over states: even urban areas with
monopoly suppliers) have with live video.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     [email-masked]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 08:57:35 -0400

Hi John, all,

> On May 31, 2020, at 5:30 PM, John G. Scudder <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> On May 31, 2020, at 5:10 PM, Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> 
>> (CC modified to wgchairs; there was some weirdness with the original mail)
>> 
>>> If I recall correctly, I raised a point a few months before 2013 about the IETF allowing free access to its meetings through the Internet.  I could not help noticing that there is now a required fee to access the next IETF meeting.
>> 
>> Note that, for WG/RG chairs, this is likely to create a weird disincentive against scheduling their online meetings in the IETF week — we might get better turnout by scheduling a (no-cost-to-attend) interim (*).
>> 
> This is a good point. It dovetails with a concern I raised earlier with my AD, which is that working groups also have incentive to meet using later interims instead of during the official 108 week in order to obtain a more normal length meeting slot. Having everybody meet using interims last time worked, in my opinion, largely because the scheduling and conflict resolution was taken care of for us. I’m not optimistic it would work well if the entire IETF decided to do it in an ad-hoc uncoordinated manner.

If your group needs a longer slot, please request multiple slots that amount to approximately the length of slot that you need and put a note in your request that you would like to have them scheduled back-to-back. Since we don’t have to deal with meeting room configurations we have more flexibility with running sessions of different lengths in parallel.

Thanks,
Alissa

> —John