Re: Radical Solution for remote participants

[Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@xxxxxxx>]

I agree with Hadriel (probably because we attend a lot of the same WGs)
that remote participants are not actively  ignored.

The problem is that, with the time lag,
and the need to type in your comments in quickly, then relay them through
the jabber scribe
A- the discussion has often moved on
before your comment gets to the mic
B - your comment is necessarily short
and, hopefully, to the point.  But if the audience doesn't "get"
the point and misinterprets your comment, you really don't get an opportunity
to clarify.
C- you can't participate in a back and
forth "conversation"

Of the remedies listed, only 

> audio input - the ability for remote participants
to speak using 
> their own voice, when it's their turn at the 'mic'.
addresses that.

(When I drag myself  out of bed
at 2:30 AM for a remote meeting, even if I have changed into clothes, I
don't think I want
video input, where remote participants can be seen
> as well as heard. )

Janet


ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx wrote on 08/16/2013 08:07:56
AM:

> From: Hadriel Kaplan <hadriel.kaplan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
> Date: 08/16/2013 08:08 AM
> Subject: Re: Radical Solution for remote participants
> Sent by: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> On Aug 13, 2013, at 6:24 AM, John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> >   There are a certain number of Working Groups where it's
standard
> > operating practice to ignore any single voice who doesn't attend
an
> > IETF week to defend his/her postings.
> 
> I don't see that happening in the WGs I attend - when remote 
> participants post to jabber, the jabber scribes get mic time.  I
> think what you mean isn't really that physical participants "ignore"
> remote ones, but more that remote participants don't have as much
> impact/weight with their input/arguments than physical participants
> do.  Is that what you mean?
> 
> 
> >   I don't always understand what Doug is asking for; but
I suspect
> > he is proposing to define a remote-participation where you get
full
> > opportunity to defend your ideas. This simply doesn't happen
today.
> 
> Then fix that problem.
> 
> Which solution addresses that problem:
> 1) Make remote participants pay money.
> 2) Add a separate mic line.
> 3) Add remote controls for A/V equipment.
> 4) Add XMPP controls for mic-line and humming.
> 5) None of the above.
> 
> ISTM it's (5).  Working Groups don't ignore remote participant
> voices because they don't pay money.  They don't ignore them
because
> they don't have a separate mic.  They don't ignore them because
they
> don't have A/V control.  They don't ignore them because they
don't 
> have XMPP controls.
> 
> WG physical participants "ignore" remote ones because they're
not 
> physically present.  We're human beings.  Human beings have
a 
> subconscious connection/empathy with other human beings based on our
> senses, that does not exist when we only read their words or only
> hear them speaking... especially when it's hear them by-proxy as the
> current jabber model uses.  This isn't news to anyone - it's
why 
> people travel to meet other people, and why the telepresence market
exists.
> 
> The next step up from our current jabber-scribe model is to have 
> audio input - the ability for remote participants to speak using 
> their own voice, when it's their turn at the 'mic'.  The next
step 
> up after that is video input, where remote participants can be seen
> as well as heard.  Both of those are technically achievable,
and 
> possibly even practical to implement - though that's something the
> folks who run and manage the meetings would have to decide, since
> they'd know a lot more than us about that.
> 
> -hadriel
>