--On Wednesday, June 10, 2020 12:01 +0000 John Scudder <jgs=40juniper.net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > As the decision to drop the audio stream was based on a > misunderstanding, would reinstating that as a > non-authenticated service compensate for that? > > Yes I think it would. Maybe > If I understand correctly, at that point we'd be close to > the status quo ante, modulo use of authenticated WebEx for > full remote participation (but listen-only audio would be > available). That seems OK to me; essentially the minimal set > of changes necessary to adapt to the circumstances. Skipping "authenticated WebEx" (because our primary remote participation and observation has been Meetecho for years), status quo ante requires registration-free (and fee-free) audio and video feeds as well as the setup intended for people who are going to participate (not observe) remotely. In practical terms, the video provides two things that audio alone does not: ability to look at people's faces and get other visual clues from what is going on the the (physical or virtual) room and ability to see slides. One can reasonably question how important the former is but, especially when either the speaker doesn't speak slowly and carefully in English without a discernable accent accent or the listener doesn't have English as a first language, the slides are really important. If we wanted to go with only a choice between full participation (and payment) and an audio stream, then the latter, when used to purposes other than checking up later on what was said, then the way to mitigate that would be for the IESG to get really, really, insistent on slides and other meeting materials being posted several days before the meeting begins. AFAIK, we have not heard from them about that and the "Important Dates" page [1] does not even identify a target or cutoff date for slides and other meeting materials, only agendas (and registration cutoffs). And, again, waivers (whether there are enough applications to get into a lottery or not) notwithstanding and with whatever the effects are of asking people to apply for them in the current model (like Mary, I'm self-funded, but won't apply), it seems to me that what we are doing is making a choice between the possibility of collecting a few extra registration fees against diversity and range of perspectives represented. I'm finding the notion that "the IETF" would choose the former over the latter. john []1 https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/108/important-dates/
