On Aug 3, 2013, at 7:25 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > First, probably to the "when meetings begin" part, but noting > that someone who gets onto the audio a few minutes late is in > exactly the same situation as someone who walks into the meeting > room a few minutes late -- announcements at the beginning of the > session are ineffective. Jabber appears to have some way of setting a banner/announcement thing that shows up when you first join a jabber session, because I've seen such a thing on occasion. I don't know if it's defined in some standard way in XMPP or a proprietary extension. But assuming it's either standard or defacto and popular, we could put the NOTE WELL in it (or a URL to a NOTE WELL). Likewise for the IETF web pages with the audio links, so that you see the NOTE WELL before clicking the audio link. Or even have an annoying pop-up if you prefer. (ugh) > We regularize remote participation [1] a bit by doing the > following. At some level, if remote participants expect to be > treated as serious members of the community, they (we) can > reasonably be expected to behave that way. > > * A mechanism for remote participants should be set up > and remote participants should be to register. The > registration procedure should include the Note Well and > any other announcement the IETF Trust, IAOC, or IESG > consider necessary (just like the registration procedure > for f2f attendance). Sure - to *participate*, i.e. have a chance at the mic. Not to listen/watch/read. > * In the hope of increased equity, lowered overall > registration fees, and consequently more access to IETF > participation by a broader and more diverse community, > the IAOC should establish a target/ recommended > registration fee for remote participants. That fee > should reflect the portion of the registration fee that > is not specifically associated with meeting expenses > (i.e., I don't believe that remote participants should > be supporting anyone's cookies other than their own). > > * In the interest of maximum participation and inclusion > of people are aren't attending f2f for economic reasons, > I think we should treat the registration fee as > voluntary, with people contributing all or part of it as > they consider possible. No questions asked and no > special waiver procedures. On the other hand, > participation without registration should be considered > as being in extremely bad taste or worse, on a par with > violations of the IPR disclosure rules. I don't agree - I go to the meetings physically, but I *want* remote people to participate. It's to everyone's benefit that they do so, including the physical attendees. I don't want to charge them for it. Making them register (for free) is fine, but don't make them pay money. Don't even make them feel guilty. The people who can afford the time and money to go to the physical meetings still get their money's worth. > * I don't see a practical and non-obtrusive way to > enforce registration, i.e., preventing anyone > unregistered from speaking, modulo the "bad taste" > comment above. But we rarely inspect badges before > letting people stand in a microphone line either. Sure there is. Have the current "[wg-name]@jabber.ietf.org" jabber rooms be for open access lurking, from any XMPP domain, and not allow microphone representation in the WG by simply having jabber scribes ignore such requests in those rooms. And have separate rooms that require registering, like "[wg-name]@members.ietf.org" or whatever, where you have to have a registered account on 'members.ietf.org'. I assume XMPP servers support such a policy? It would be a free account, but require filling out the blue-sheet type information, verified email address, etc. Or maybe even have it all in the same current jabber room but only accounts with "members.ietf.org" as the domain portion are represented at the mic by the jabber scribes. > In return, the IETF generally (and particularly people in the > room) needs to commit to a level of seriousness about remote > participation that has not consistently been in evidence. In > particular: > > * Remote participants should have as much access to mic > lines and the ability to participate in discussions as > those who are present in the room. That includes > recognizing that, if there is an audio lag and it takes > a few moments to type in a question or comment, some > flexibility about "the comment queue is closed" may have > to be in order. For some sessions, it might require > doing what ICANN has started doing (at least sometimes), > which is treating the remote participants as a separate > mic queue rather than expecting the Jabber scribe (or > remote participant messenger/ channeler) to get at the > end of whatever line is most convenient. Do you find this is an actual problem in WG meetings? My experience has been the opposite. The WG chairs always seem to let jabber participants get their 2 cents in, even if the queue line has been capped... especially if there's lag. > * It is really, really, important that those speaking, > even if they happen to be sitting at the chair's table, > clearly and carefully identify themselves. Last week, > there were a few rooms in which the audio was, to put it > very politely, a little marginal. That happens. But, > when it combines with people mumbling their names or > saying them very quickly, the result is as little > speaker identification as would have been the case if > the name hadn't been used as all. In addition, some of > us suffer from the disability of not being able to keep > track of unfamiliar voices while juggling a few decks of > slides, a jabber session, audio, and so on. "I > identified myself 10 minutes ago" is not generally > adequate. Do you find this is an actual problem in WG meetings? Are the jabber scribes not able to tell you who is at the mic if you ask them? People have forgotten to state their names in WGs I go to, but the scribes have been fairly vocal about reminding folks to do it. -hadriel