Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote: > > For obvious reasons, there is some renewed/increased interest in use of > remote hubs for IETF meetings. Although there has been quite a bit of > activity with hubs in recent years, I believe the expectations and > requirements for them have been kept informal (and possibly > idiosyncratic, with each hub doing whatever locals prefer.)
Alas, yes. They attract mostly a "local" audience, often with interest concentrated on a very few sessions. This is less than I hope we'd wish to offer to folks that were planning to go to Chicago. > If we believe we are going to be relying on the use of remote hubs more, > we should try to clarify what services they need to provide and how > their operation should be incorporated into the conduct of face-to-face > IETF meetings. Even if we _don't_ believe that, I support such a goal. > By way of example... > > Should they support multiple, parallel sessions, so that different > groups of hub participants can 'attend' different, parallel sessions? Yes! Clearly, not all remote-hubs _can_ do that; but it's not particularly hard for even the smallest university. > Should the interaction between hub participants and participants at > the 'main' venue be subject to particular procedures/style? Yes; but who _can_ enforce that? I have experienced sessions where nobody volunteers to jabber-scribe; and that's the end of the story. (I might as well follow a different session, and catch up via the session recording.) If we arrange for a friendly jabber-scribe willing to make a fuss, I think progress could be fairly quick. But that's not going to work as top-down: it will have to be asking friends _before_ the session starts. > Thoughts? The MeetEcho folks are our friends!!! -- John Leslie <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html. https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
