Dave CROCKER <d...@dcrocker.net> wrote: > John Leslie wrote: > >> Our timeframe is too short to rule out "hacks" for Stockholm. For >> the IETF after that, we should be able to automate things. > > The timeframe for vmeet is whatever we set it to be.
Not meaning to contradict, but Russ Housley has committed to make the Stockholm IETF week "remote-participation friendly". I do believe he is hoping from some assistance from us. > My own participation came from suggesting that we work towards > replacing at least one IETF week with virtual meetings. A noble goal, according to my bank account! ;^) (Do note, however, that the Secretariat is signing contracts for 2013...) > There is no way that is happening immediately. It's a goal, but we are > not trying to meet it instantly. Absolutely! > Since there already are virtual interim meetings, here too we do not > have to have an "immediate" deadline. I wasn't thinking of a "deadline" -- more a "milestone". > That's why I think we can and should target capabilities beyond what > the IETF currently use, balancing against easy, reliable use so that > folks will not feel that it is a burden to participate. Of course, if we're _really_ thinking "after 2013," we can afford to concentrate more on open-standard tools than on currently-marketed proprietary tools... Maybe we need to "formalize" some informal goals / milestones? -- John Leslie <j...@jlc.net> _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html. https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
