First, let me say that I agree. I definitely want participation of contributors more than bodies-in-chairs. :)
We are doing our best to get remote participation facilities, and so far it's looking good. At this point the question is really about how to patch things together, and we'll let the WG know when the details are sorted. Further, if it really comes down to physical space constraints, there are some tricks we can play to make more room (eg, change the room configuration) for more attendees. I've not yet seen the meeting room firsthand, but I'm told it's big. I'm investigating the details, as a contingency, and I doubt that space will be a real problem. (I also note that we currently have plenty of registration slots, so it's not yet an issue to worry over too much.) That being said, I also recognize that there are potential benefits of an in-person meeting (as opposed to a virtual meeting) and I'm loathe to sacrifice those in order to accommodate remote participants. Maintaining this balance isn't necessarily easy. So, even though we will do our best to allow remote participation, I still recommend contributors attend in person if possible. Cheers, -Benson On Aug 18, 2012, at 0:17, Melinda Shore <[email protected]> wrote: > On 8/17/12 1:22 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote: >> Space is limited, and registrations will be accepted on a >> first-come-first-served basis. > > I think that given this situation the importance of providing a > remote participation option has been bumped up a notch. It would > indeed be unfortunate if people who are contributors were unable > to participate because bodies-in-chairs registered sooner. > > Melinda > > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
