Re: in-person vs remote participation (was: Newcomers [Was: Evolutionizing the IETF])
> "George" == George, Wes 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
Re: in-person vs remote participation (was: Newcomers [Was: Evolutionizing the IETF])
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])
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 6:15 PM, George, Wes 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
in-person vs remote participation (was: Newcomers [Was: Evolutionizing the IETF])
> 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. The whole meatspace vs cyberspace argument has been going on ever since there has been a cyberspace, so I'm not going to act like this is new, but I think we're getting to the point now where the technology is catching up with the science fiction portrayal such that it's worth having the discussion again. Wes George This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified tha
in-person vs remote participation (was: Newcomers [Was: Evolutionizing the IETF])
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Hector Santos > > The IETF should be leading the charge for easy to use, multi-device > readiness cyberspacing virtual meeting places, including better > electronic groupware collaboration tools, etc. It is undoubtedly and > inevitably the "Achilles' Heel" for the IETF Meeting. So the IETF needs > to embrace it now, big time, before its too late. This includes getting > on board with membership models to subsidize the business and its > future. This shouldn't take away "Face to Face" communications - in > fact, it will increase it. Its much more doable with today's higher > universal bandwidth and the IETF needs to be prime examples of the > various technology it is helping put together and standardize. In fact, > the IETF can probably learn and help improve groupware communications > with new working groups focusing on groupware. > [WEG] as someone who normally attends meetings in person, and had no choice but to participate remotely this time on account of injury, I agree that IETF needs to be focused on ways to improve remote participation as a means to reduce the barrier to participation that our current travel requirements represent. However, this is not only a technology problem. Remote participants suffer from a cultural problem that is merely being exacerbated by the technology's limitations. It is by no means unique to the IETF, because I've experienced it plenty of times while working for companies that have remote offices and teleworkers, but we definitely need to acknowledge it and look for solutions to it if we're going to be successful with remote participation. 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. 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 up a week, traveled, paid for hotel, meals, registration, etc. and often the lack of a face to go with the name makes a tangible difference in the interactions. The only reason that remote participation even sort of works in the IETF is that there are enough people who have done it before and know how much it can suck when it goes poorly that they make a conscious effort to treat remote participants as an equal part of the meeting attendees such that they enforce good mic etiquette, volunteer to be jabber scribes, ensure presentations are posted, etc. even when the WG chairs fail to do so. While I am very grateful for those folks, that's an unreliable mechanism, one that failed on numerous occasions in several WGs I tried to participate in this past week. I don't post this message to whine, but to note that if we're going to get serious about remote participation, it's not all about shiny new tools, but instead the mentality of those who still participate in person. There are other less tangible issues that I'll address in another message. Wes George This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
