Re: in-person vs remote participation (was: Newcomers [Was: Evolutionizing the IETF])

2012-11-12 Thread Riccardo Bernardini
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 6:15 PM, George, Wes wesley.geo...@twcable.com wrote:
 From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
 Mikael Abrahamsson

 Personally I believe there could be value in describing what the value
 is to attend the meeting physically. I attended the last meeting in
 Stockholm because it meant I only had to pay the entrence fee, since I
 live there.

 Getting buy-in from management to allow me to go for a week somewhere
 and not be available in the office, pay for hotel and travel, plus the
 entrence fee, it's hard to justify to management. What is a good answer
 to the question why?.

 [WEG] I've had to justify my participation in IETF multiple times in the last 
 few years, and while official duties as a presenter or WG chair made 
 justifying travel easier, prior to that point, I had to try to articulate 
 exactly this. As noted in my other message, this was the first remote meeting 
 for a while for me, and it put into sharp relief the difference between 
 in-person and remote participation. While most folks do indeed attend IETF to 
 attend WG meetings, I think that's only part of the story, and you're right, 
 it's something we need to do a better job of articulating and considering 
 when we attempt to replicate IETF attendance virtually or help new 
 participants feel included.

 First and foremost, the act of getting away from the office and the financial 
 and time commitments involved in traveling to a physical meeting a few times 
 a year tends to reinforce the need to prepare for the meeting by reading 
 drafts, catching up on IETF work that has languished, etc. The travel and 
 meeting schedule imposes a deadline of sorts, in addition to providing 
 physical separation that allows people to reprioritize their work so that for 
 that week or so, $dayjob becomes secondary to focusing on what's happening in 
 IETF, since everyone traveled all that way and spent all that money to 
 meet together. The proximity provides an excuse to get work done, whether in 
 a WG meeting, or sitting in the hall collaborating with a co-author in 
 real-time. I don't know how you replicate that virtually, especially in the 
 extremes of timezone differential. I know for me, life intrudes a lot when I 
 haven't physically *left* my normal location and therefore I should be 
 available for the things I would normally do when I am home or in the office. 
 Perhaps if we move to a virtual-only model, we would be able to spread the 
 work out in smaller chunks over more time so that it's more manageable as a 
 portion of your overall workload, or perhaps we keep the defined meeting time 
 as a way to ensure coordination across many timezones, I don't know.

 The other things that become important are the hallway track and the many 
 fine lunches and dinners. Those come up when talking about attending IETF in 
 person, but often it's meant to imply that those involved are there for the 
 wrong reasons (i.e. IETF as company-sponsored tourism or job search) rather 
 than to acknowledge its value in ensuring that IETF does make progress by 
 forging personal and professional relationships between its participants. 
 There is so much networking that happens during those that is mostly lost to 
 remote participants, and it really is invaluable. Whether it's trying to work 
 out a compromise on a particularly contentious part of a draft, or stumbling 
 across a problem or solution in a freewheeling conversation, or just talking 
 shop with like-minded folks, I find that this makes IETF a much more 
 rewarding experience. I also find that this makes it easier to make progress 
 in WGs when limited to low-bandwidth communications channels like email, 
 because you now know the other people involved. In person attendance, food 
 and drink provide the opportunity, and are the means, rather than the end. 
 But that requires you to know people well enough at least professionally that 
 you can take advantage of that. I can see that being challenging for those 
 who are newcomers or have only met someone virtually. I am quite sure that 
 there are ways to replicate those more unofficial/social interactions 
 virtually with the improvements in video conferencing and telepresence 
 technology, but I'm not sure it's possible to get past the strong psychology 
 that makes doing it over food and drink more effective.

Let me add my own experience here, related to a different environment
(scientific conferences), but also very similar to yours.  Usually, if
I go to a conference it is because I have a paper to present, but that
it is not the only payback of being there.  There is the hall (or bar)
talking with old colleagues of mine, there is the casual meeting of
other researchers (old and young) working in my field with which I
exchange experiences, point of view and maybe a new collaboration can
be born.  Actually, I do not know how this could be replicated with an
online tool.

Let's face 

Re: in-person vs remote participation (was: Newcomers [Was: Evolutionizing the IETF])

2012-11-12 Thread Dave Crocker



On 11/12/2012 8:29 AM, George, Wes wrote:

   Remote participants are figuratively (and often
literally) invisible, and therefore people forget about them, and
they get relegated to second-class status as a participant.


It is easy for this to be true; it takes effort to make it not true.

I believe the Meetecho facility for displaying both slides and the 
jabber transcript on the screen, simultaneous, significantly changes the 
dynamic.  Everyone naturally sees postings from remote participants.


It still takes meeting management effort to include remote folks into 
the face-to-face discussion flow, but their presence is more universally 
seen automatically.




 Even if
it's only subconsciously, the in-person participants don't see remote
participants to be as committed to participation as those who gave


Interesting point.  I think that remote participants who already have 
established a strong participation role are less likely to be viewed 
that way.  But frankly, I think even local participants with little IETF 
history are more likely to be discounted (or at least less counted.)



d/
--
 Dave Crocker
 Brandenburg InternetWorking
 bbiw.net


Re: in-person vs remote participation (was: Newcomers [Was: Evolutionizing the IETF])

2012-11-12 Thread Michael Richardson

 George == George, Wes wesley.geo...@twcable.com writes:
George First and foremost, the act of getting away from the office
George and the financial and time commitments involved in traveling
George to a physical meeting a few times a year tends to reinforce
George the need to prepare for the meeting by reading drafts,
George catching up on IETF work that has languished, etc. The

+1
I don't see how we will reproduce this online.

also, we talk about cross-area review, and sometimes this is faciliated 
by WG tourists...

When participating remotely when there were 12 hours TZ differences, a
really really really hard part was explaining to my kid, that really, I
wasn't home.  

George The other things that become important are the hallway
George track and the many fine lunches and dinners. Those come
George up when talking about attending IETF in person, but often
George it's meant to imply that those involved are there for the
George wrong reasons (i.e. IETF as company-sponsored tourism or job
George search) rather than to acknowledge its value in ensuring

+1

-- 
Michael Richardson
-on the road-



pgptLiE0bnBTD.pgp
Description: PGP signature