Re: procedural question with remote participation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 06/08/13 19:03, Keith Moore wrote:

But if we're only concerned with making presentation slides available, we're selling ourselves very short. That's the point I'm trying to make.

Keith


Hi Keith,

Thanks for clarifying it - agree with you fully on this point.

Keeping a clear goal in mind helps improve our current practice, and I pretty much like what Joe hinted:


On 06/08/13 18:41, Joe Abley wrote:
The best outcome at a working group meeting is that, as a presenter, you spend most of your time listening rather than talking. If the mic line is empty, you probably should not have been on the agenda. Joe


How to get remote participants involved in meaningful discussion deserves our close attention, besides to improve the experience for f2f participants, e.g., presenters. (IMO, when to upload slides and how to coordinate is a WG specific issue and WG/session chairs can define a rule of conduct in their own meetings so it works best there, for both remote and f2f)

Cheers,
Aaron


PS: I personally find it rather funny to see people claiming one's own approach works better and so forth implicitly indicating they really understand what remote/f2f participants need, and even so, we others should follow... which somehow reminds me Dave Crocker once joked in another thread that

"almost everyone claims that they are a better than average driver" ;)




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]