--On Sunday, January 29, 2017 19:33 -0500 John Leslie
<[email protected]> wrote:
>...
> 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.
John, please keep in mind that we ultimately all participate as
individuals. I'm very much in favor of remote hubs where they
work and meet local needs, but we should do nothing that weakens
the ability of people to participate remotely from their own
offices or desktops. In particular...
>> 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.
Yes, but, again, not at the expense of individual participation
for those for whom the hubs are either not convenient or don't
meet their needs.
>> By way of example...
>...
>> Should the interaction between hub participants and
>> participants at the 'main' venue be subject to
>> particular procedures/style?
>
> Yes; but who _can_ enforce that?
Enforcement aside, that is where I start getting worried because
I don't want to see three classes of participation in which
those who participate remotely as individuals are at the bottom
of the heap. We have enough difficulties now without changing
a two-mode problem into a three mode one. See below.
> 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.
Probably, but I'm not sure I understand what you are talking
about. Jabber scribes serve multiple purposes. If you are
talking about the "run to microphone and read something someone
remote manages to type it", it doesn't scale well independent of
any other issues (such as whether there is a Jabber scribe and
how much attention he or she is paying to remove comments).
Meetecho's rather elegant queue management facilities should be
a big help with that and, used properly, should scale at least
as well as microphone lines in meeting rooms (and integrate with
them). However, to be effective, those facilities require that
WG Chairs understand the importance of remote participation and
treat remote participants in a fair and balanced way relative to
people in the room. That is partially an education problem and
partially an attitude one; neither this list nor mtgvenue can
solve either.
>> Thoughts?
>
> The MeetEcho folks are our friends!!!
Definitely.
best,
john
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html.
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
