John, On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:15 AM, John Leslie <[email protected]> wrote:
> I see three new emails here on <vmeet>. I intend a reply to each; but > Alia is going to get short-changed until perhaps tomorrow. :^( > > Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >... > > I would like to add some nuance to the description of IETF Hubs and > > distinguish between the activity of being an IETF Remote Hub for one or > > more WG meetings during an IETF meeting and being an IETF Community Hub. > > A Community Hub is trying to build a semi-permanent community connected > to > > IETF through a variety of activities (social, technical talks, remote > hubs, > > etc.). > > I suggest that existing Community Hubs are nonetheless an obvious > place to look when you need a Remote Hub... > Absolutely! As one of the activities. > > Let's talk briefly about what is necessary for a Remote Hub and some of > the > > associated challenges. > > > > 1) A physical location for the meeting. Since an IETF Meeting has > about 8 > > parallel sessions, trying to truly provide access to all of the sessions > > would mean at least 8 different conference rooms. > > Not true. > > IMHO, a Remote Hub needs "at least one" conference room. If that means > groups have to fight it out for which group gets that conference room for > a particular session, so be it! > > But a Remote Hub _does_ need a place for attendees to individually > participate in whatever sessions look interesting. This require bandwidth > and power for a laptop. Audio can be via earphones with attached > microphone. > Ideally, there would be a "neutral backdrop" for using the built-in camera. > > (I have declined to attend the Boston Hub because my home office is > _so_much_better_ in that respect.) > Yes - I am pushing back against Dave Crocker's question about what each Remote Hub needs to have to fully participate. In reality, I think one or more conference rooms are good. I don't quite think that a place for a person to just listen is that useful - b/c it wouldn't be great if anyone actually wanted to participate verbally in the meeting. > > 2) Limited attendance and interest: A particular geography is unlikely > to > > have folks interested in every WG - and perhaps not even more than 1. > > You make my point for #1 above. > > > 3) Split Community: Many active IETFers are off attending the physical > > IETF meeting, which leaves those who can't go to attend the Remote Hub. > > Sometimes that works fine - where there are folks who are well connected > > into the IETF and can explain things as needed and yet don't attend all > the > > physical meetings - and sometimes it can leave an experience gap in the > > room. > > Fortunately, that's not the problem for Boston Hub. Agreed :-) We have lots of experienced IETFers who don't always travel. > > 4) Inconvenience of time-zone: Very few people are interested in getting > up > > in the middle of the night to drive even 30 minutes to sit in a > conference > > room by themselves or with a couple other folks - and have the needed > > participants for conversations be physically elsewhere. > > Yes: having to dress for outside-weather and drive an hour to get > uncertain > access is a real deterrent! Nonetheless, cheap lodging is available almost > everywhere for folks who can clear one whole day but not two more days for > travel (not to mention uncertain entry into another country). > There has to be enough added value to consider lodging... That feels to me like getting up to at least 50 or more attendees and having good social interactions local. Regards, Alia > (Time to move on... sorry.) > > -- > 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
