Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I think what you're getting at is that there are different types of remote
> participation. If one wants to listen in, that should only require the
> appropriate software and a network connection. If one actually wants to
> participate, then one either has to get onto a WeBex or Meetecho system. The
> point of this is that there has should be some demonstration that someone
> substantially participated in an IETF event.
I find that jabber+streamed mp3 is sufficient for a lot of things.
I do not think that one has to actively contribute as much as be available to
object to bad ideas. So, we mostly need to register for that remotely
controlled hum generator.
> to do so. Others, on the other hand, require more bandwidth. Case and point:
> the httpbis working group has held two interim meetings and two more are
> planned. All off site. Should these people be counted? If so, how?
I think that once we have a mechanism to count remote participation, we will
use it. I think that an interim meeting is just part of the in-person
meeting that follows it. That makes it simple and direct.
An in-person interim meeting may provide substantially more "indoctrination"
to a new person than a full blown meeting.
> And so, as I said, I'm fine with SM's idea, modulo John's suggested edit. But
> I also think it would be useful to look beyond that change as well.
+1
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
Attachment:
pgp19QPXWpmfp.pgp
Description: PGP signature