> > 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.
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"?
> 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.
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.)
> * 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.
And to what extent will the costs of some 15 people travelling to
three different locations a year change this?
Ned
