Alessandro Vesely <vesely@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > I'm happy that Meetecho is gradually improving our remote > participation experience. However, as a matter of fact, that is > still not quite the same thing as in person participation. Well said! (I'll get back to this...) > Question: Consider a WG which is really in need of a face to face > meeting. A very important participant, such as the editor of the main > WG document, however, would only participate remotely, because he is > an independent consultant and lacks specific funds. This is becoming more common. (Of course, Document Editor isn't a good example of the problem -- that role can _better_ be done without the distractions of an IETF week.) But there are many interactions which _do_ work much better in person. Fresh in mind is the mostly-failed interaction started by Barry Leiba in apps-discuss@xxxxxxxx over the interpretation of RFC 3864: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg07374.html I remain amazed how much failure-to-communicate happened in that thread! I think we reached the right outcome; but I'm still not sure what John Klensin was trying to say. In-person, such exchanges tend to resolve in three minutes, not three days... The good news is that we _have_ learned how to resolve these things via email -- and many of us remain committed to doing so. The bad news is that there are _so_ many issues floating around that a lot of them die out before they can be resolved via email. It's hard to blame Working Group Chairs that aim to resolve issues during IETF weeks -- but the result is rather slow progress and the effective exclusion of some of the folks best able to find actual common ground (the Document Editors' job). > Can the WG --in such case-- set up some arrangements, e.g. take a > collection up from the other participants, or anything to a similar > effect? Are there provisions or limitations? There really aren't any such provisions -- or for that matter limitations -- for such actions. IMHO, such actions aren't likely to succeed. Participation in an IETF week tends to be $5,000 cold cash in addition to the value of one's time (which not all of us _can_ afford to donate). > IMHO, participation of individuals and small businesses is not less > important than that of newcomers from emerging and developing economies. I agree (of course!) that experienced folks generally have more to offer than newcomers. I believe that -- in principle -- most participants would agree. Returning to the first item: > > I'm happy that Meetecho is gradually improving our remote > participation experience. However, as a matter of fact, that is > still not quite the same thing as in person participation. The whole Internet is not-quite-the-same-thing as the world before Internet! "Quite-the-same-thing" is definitely the wrong metric here: Internet enables many things which we couldn't do Before-Internet. Instead of trying to squeeze these things onto the laptop we carry to IETF week, why not learn to squeeze the interactions onto the Internet and interact from our offices where we have _all_ of our tools available? Granted, employers are generally looking for a more immediate payback when sponsoring folks to IETF weeks -- not something where the goal isn't even visible yet. We already have efforts in this direction in RTCWEB and CLUE WGs; but the goals remain indistinct to most IETF participants. And, of course, we have Paul Hoffman's work (which you can follow on the VMEET list) for improving remote participation. I am acutely embarrassed that I won't even be able to attend Atlanta in person. But I find that my overall IETF-week experiences are in some ways more productive "participating" remotely from my office. Jabber can be an effective interaction tool; I can keep multiple screens active; I'm not limited to cookies to keep my energy level up; et cetera. I suggest active participation in VMEET: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet for all the experienced folks who find themselves unable to attend IETF weeks in person. -- John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx>