Christian O'Flaherty <[email protected]> wrote: > On Feb 2, 2017, at 8:20 PM, John Leslie <[email protected]> wrote: >> Christian O'Flaherty <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Before we start working on the documents I would try to decide what >>> do we need, >> >>Hard to answer that before agreeing what we're trying to accomplish??? > > I guess we're trying to make the remote participation experience closer > to the real WG meeting.
The experience of in-room participation varies a lot! We're already pretty-close for the folks who only want background-noise while they read and respond to email. ;^) >>> How can we make it equivalent to be an individual remote participant >>> vs. part of a remote hub. >> >> We can't. > > actually, we're trying to improve remote participation so it's not bad > if it's different. Definitely a better statement of the goal. > I wanted to address JohnK point: "do not do them at the expense of > individual participation" I couldn't figure that out when I first read it... After a couple of nights sleeping on it, I guess he meant: going from in-person to remote makes one feel like a second-class citizen; he _really_doesn't_ want to have to feel like a third-class citizen! And our response to that should be, "we're designing tools that you can use even if you're the only one at your Remote Hub." >>> And how are they different to interim [video] calls? >> >> Different issue... > > is it? What if there's a WG session in the main IETF meeting where > just lurkers are at the main session and the people doing most of the > work are remote participants (in hubs or individuals). What a sad case! > Isn't it closer to an interim meeting? I've seen many different styles of interim meetings... Typically, you try to gather a bunch of really-active people in one room, and enable remote participation using MeetEcho. >>> a way forward could be to update the current documents making it clear >>> it was an experiment to promote IETF participation and start a learning >>> process on doing something more formal. >> >> I recommend against trying "more-formal" before we settle what we're >> trying to accomplish. > > I agree on avoiding "more-formal" as much as possible but I thought we > were clear on what we are trying to accomplish. I doubt that... :^( John K could help by being specific about what makes him feel like a second-class citizen. Then others could share their experiences. >> Myself, I'd like to make remote-hubs more practical for folks already >> familiar with on-site IETF weeks. I think that will help newcomers >> as well as "oldcomers???. > > That's right, although it will attract more newcomers from the regions > of people already familiar with on-site IETF meetings. I'm pretty sure that all "regions" have folks who have attended more than one IETF week. Even one of those would really help... > But I will support you by now -- we should focus on this objective: > "make remote-hubs more practical for folks already familiar > with on-site IETF weeks" I believe that if we can make John K happy, it will become a better experience for newcomers. -- 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
