On 14/Apr/20 16:47, Martin J. Levy wrote:
>
> Huh? No. You should be doing the exact opposite in this day-n-age. You
> should be going for the absolute maximum number of online attendees.
> Active participation will occur - those that are active are not
> affected by number of “virtual” attendees.
>
> Face reality - online meetings are the new norm. The chances of
> meetings like yours going back to physical meetings for every meeting
> is slim. If this crisis has proven anything, it’s proven that we can
> happily continue and excel without the need to congregate in one
> location for an afternoon of talks. We can communicate and discuss and
> improve while being online. Heck! Tea and biscuits are in my kitchen -
> so there’s that issue solved!
I tend to agree with Martin.
If anyone thinks there is some "normal" to return to after we reach some
kind of solution with the Coronavirus, safe to say you're behind the
curve already (no pun intended).
Our industry is one of the very few that fly around the world the most,
and yet we've built this awesome piece of kit called the Internet that
we have, finally, allowed to leave the house and walk down the street
for some fresh air. Look, our child hasn't broken, and in fact, has held
up pretty well (despite some men in suits somewhere believing we have to
cut back video resolution).
Online conferencing apps are evolving to deal with the rewriting of the
models we are seeing all over the world. And they will continue to be
adapted accordingly, so that won't be the excuse going forward.
>
> Please reconsider that “30”. Please aim for the stars - go online with
> 300 or heck, even more! It’s not like there’s a limit when hosting a
> Zoom call (I just finish a 900+ attendee live presentation - over
> three continents - flawless!).
Also, in my experience, not everyone on the call is going to be eager to
speak. But they certainly will be eager to listen, and possibly, reach
out afterward.
Mark.
