> On Feb 3, 2017, at 1:50 PM, John Leslie <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
ok That phrasing also helps on setting expectations. We don’t have enough experience on remote hubs to plan an update on the current working process. We can keep growing the remote participation hubs and learn how to benefit from them. >> 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.” +1 as long as the remote participation tools do not differentiate if you’re alone or not, we can assure there will be no third class participation. We just need a way to collect information from hubs for IETF records (# of people, WG attended, feedback, etc.) > >>>> 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! but it's feasible, Fortunately, we may not need to worry about that by now because we’ll not be changing the way of working… >> 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. we can proceed with updating the current Drafts keeping the objective of improving remote participation (instead of trying to update the working process in anyway) Christian > >>> 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]> Christian O'Flaherty [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Regional Development - Internet Society Skype/Gmail/Yahoo!: christian.oflaherty Mobile/WhatsApp: +598 98769636
_______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html. https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
