John, >> ... >> We can call them "Meeting Hubs" and "Community Hubs" (and >> avoid the term "IETF hubs" completely because we've been >> using that term for both) >> ... > > Independent of what the local, continuing, groups are called, > I'd favor breaking the groupings that are expected to serve as > substitutes for f2f presence at IETF meeting locations into > separate categories for those that are mostly intended to > provide a place to gather for meeting observation and > educational purposes and those that are intended to support > multiple active participants. The latter may require special > attention wrt available WGs, virtual blue sheets and other > surrogates for registration and making participation public, > queue management for queries and statements, etc.
For the time being, we can think about remote hubs as regular remote participation. If we agree on that, there are no additional benefits or requirements for active WG participants. We can include some tools for hubs (such as registering the amount of participants in the hub, announcing it, etc.), but those are to capture and measure the hubs without altering the working process. An announced remote hub for a working group session, should be appropriate for both observers and active participants and will benefit the newcomers if they can share the hub with someone active. Christian > > john > > > > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html. https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
