Subject: remote participation

From: "James P. Salsman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:24:22 -0700 (PDT)

Is there anything in the IESG governing rules that requires any 
physical presence at a particular location in order to accomplish 
any IESG tasks?

I think the IETF took a wrong turn when the first PostScript RFC 
was published, because that is sort of hard on those blind persons 
who might want to participate.

I'm all in favor of UTF-8, though.  I can imagine wanting to refer 
to the International Phonetic Alphabet in an Internet Draft, but I 
don't want to depend on graphics lost on the blind.

Cheers,
James

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:48:57 -0700 (PDT)

> physical presence at a particular location in order to accomplish

I don't know of anything explicit in the rules, but as a practical matter
it is essential that IESG members be present at most IETF meetings.

The reason is simple: The IESG is composed of Area Directors, and a key Area
Director responsibility is to assist and manage the various Working Groups in
their area. While it is true that much or even most Working Group activity
takes place on mailing lists, there's no substitute for F2F meetings in order
to accomplish some tasks. And the Area Directors would be seriously remiss if
they weren't a part of this activity.

> who might want to participate.

I'm not fond of PostScript RFCs either, but I think this overstates the case
considerably. The primary form of all RFCs was and is plain text; PostScript
and PDF are secondary formats.

I also think the term "fad" can be applied to PostScript RFCs. I just checked,
and there are a whopping total of 46 of them out of the thousands of RFCs that
have been published. The first PostScript RFC appeared in November 1991, and
since May 1996 there have only been 4 of them out of roughly 1000 RFCs
published.

> don't want to depend on graphics lost on the blind.

We try very hard not to have such dependencies.

				Ned

---

From: "James P. Salsman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 23:03:11 -0700 (PDT)

Ned,

Thanks for your message.  One part is very interesting:

> there's no substitute for F2F meetings in order to accomplish some tasks.

I agree, but I would like to know which of the IESG tasks most require 
face-to-face meetings.  If they were listed, maybe some solutions would 
be engineered so that more could be done between meetings.

There are plenty of reasons to keep trying:  Fuel costs are going up;
advances in effective telecommuting technologies would benefit most 
people; some disabled people can not attend in person; it would reduce 
pollution*; network companies would sell more goods and services, etc.

Cheers,
James

* The extent to which this is important is illustrated by the fact that
the curve of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 500+
years fits closely to the equation:

  fraction of unit volume = 0.000276 + 0.0081/(1 + exp(-(year - 2254)/56.8)

which explains about 99% of the variation of observed values.  That 
predicts that the amount of CO2 will double pre-1700 levels in 2060, and 
be ten times pre-1700 levels around the year 2300.  CO2 is the largest 
source of atmospheric energy "forcing", which causes global warming.  The 
greatest sources of such gases will probably continue to be fuel burned 
for transportation, until about 1/3 of all vehicles become zero-emission.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 23:36:41 -0700 (PDT)

> be engineered so that more could be done between meetings.

I already answered this. The IESG of managing and assisting Working Groups
is one of the most important tasks IESG members perform, and it cannot
be done effectively from a remote location.

Even if you provided extremely high quality multimedia facilities that could
accomodate not only all the sessions but also the IESG/IAB breakfasts and
various other scheduled events during the meeting it would not help the IESG
significantly, since additional ad-hoc discussions routinely take place outside
the meeting rooms. Ever hear the term "bar-BOF"?

> pollution*; network companies would sell more goods and services, etc.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. It is only reasonable to try when there is some
chance of success. And IMO the chance of success here is zero. You're
tilting at a very big windmill.

I do note that it is already possible to participate quite effectively in the
IETF without ever attending a F2F meeting. And the IETF is one of the few
standards bodies where this is true. It is only the upper-level management for
which attendance is a requirement. (And since I'm on the IESG and really hate
to travel, I wish this weren't so. But the reality is what it is.)

> for transportation, until about 1/3 of all vehicles become zero-emission.

And to what extent will the costs of some 15 people travelling to 
three different locations a year change this?

				Ned

---

From: "James P. Salsman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 01:06:19 -0700 (PDT)

Ned,

Thanks for your reply:

> The IESG of managing and assisting Working Groups
> is one of the most important tasks IESG members perform, 
> and it cannot be done effectively from a remote location.

I'm interested in the specific reasons why this is the case.  

You listed one:

> additional ad-hoc discussions routinely take place outside
> the meeting rooms.

That's a good example of a specific reason that makes non-portable 
teleconferencing equipment pointless for such kinds of participation.  
Is there any reason not to expect that with advances in lightweight, 
portable, wireless teleconferencing terminals, this reason will 
eventually decline in importance?

Here is another reason:  there is a tradition at IETF meetings 
to conduct informal polls by humming.  I know of know 
teleconferecing system that allows that kind of quick voting, 
but I'm sure they must exist.  There are email-based systems 
that provide support to parlamentary ("Roberts Rules of Order") 
meetings.  Perhaps teleconferencing applications will be enhanced 
with quick aggregate polling features.

What other essential activities tend to require attendance in 
person?

It may seem like tilting at windmills, but this topic is a rich 
source of hard unsolved engineering problems.
 
> I do note that it is already possible to participate quite effectively in
> the IETF without ever attending a F2F meeting. And the IETF is one of the
> few standards bodies where this is true. 

Yes, the IETF is the clear leader in this regard, and there is no 
reason to believe it will not continue to be.

Cheers,
James

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 01:46:19 -0700 (PDT)

> I'm interested in the specific reasons why this is the case.

There are so many it is difficult to know where to start. Examples include:

  Try figuring out the general attitude of a room containing, say, several
  hundred people remotely. Can't be done, and this is *vital*.

  Try taking someone aside to have a private discussion of a point raised
  in the public discussion. Can't be done, and this is also *vital*.

  Even simple things like raising a point of order -- something ADs sometimes
  have to do -- are hard to do remotely.

> eventually decline in importance?

No. Advances in teleconferencing facilities for remote participation in small
groups in fixed facilities still aren't even close to equalling F2F
interactions. (The group I'm in at Sun is split between facilities in West
Covina and Santa Clara, so I spend a lot of time with this sort of technology.)

I see no reason to believe that the myriad problems with the sort of
participation you describe, which are far harder to solve, will be addressed
any better in anything resembling a meaningful time frame.

Incidentally, another problem with IETF meetings is given the size of many of
the sessions the facilities we use currently aren't adequate to accomodate full
remote participation, let alone remote management. Better facilities exist, but
they are *extremely* expensive, and the amount of technical expertise needed to
operate them is high. (I probably should point out that I used to be a sound
designer and technician.)

> with quick aggregate polling features.

And that would change the character of the process completely. Another
nonstarter.

> What other essential activities tend to require attendance in

See above.

> source of hard unsolved engineering problems.
 
Well, perhaps you have the time to discuss ideas that will never go anywhere at
great length, but I'm afraid I don't. So this will be my last message on this
topic.

				Ned

---

From: Grenville Armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 09:16:33 -0700

"James P. Salsman" wrote:
	[..]
> source of hard unsolved engineering problems.

Not all unsolved problems need solving. Perhaps it would be
useful to quantify the real harm suffered by the IETF due to
the attendance requirement 'problem' ?

cheers,
gja
...who used to think IP over ATM was an important engineering problem.