On Friday, August 16, 2013 18:39:04 John C Klensin wrote: > --On Friday, August 16, 2013 15:46 -0400 Hadriel Kaplan > > <hadriel.kaplan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Aug 16, 2013, at 1:53 PM, John C Klensin > > > > <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> (1) As Dave points out, this activity has never been free. > >> The question is only about "who pays". If any participants > >> have to pay > >> (or convince their companies to pay) and others, as a matter > >> of categories, do not, that ultimately weakens the process > >> even if, most of the time, those who pay don't expect or get > >> favored treatment. Having some participants get a "free > >> ride" that really comes at the expense of other participants > >> (and potentially competing organizations) is just not a > >> healthy idea. > > > > Baloney. People physically present still have an advantage > > over those remote, no matter how much technology we throw at > > this. That's why corporations are willing to pay their > > employees to travel to these meetings. And it's why people > > are willing to pay out-of-pocket for it too, ultimately. It's > > why people want a day-pass type thing for only attending one > > meeting, instead of sitting at home attending remote. > > > > Being there is important, and corporations and people know it. > > Sure. And it is an entirely separate issue, one which I don't > know how to solve (if it can be solved at all). It is > unsolvable in part because corporations --especially the larger > and more successful ones-- make their decisions about what to > participate in, at what levels, and with whatever choices of > people, for whatever presumably-good business reasons they do > so. I can, for example, remember one such corporation refusing > to participate in a standards committee that was working on > something that many of us thought was key to their primary > product. None us knew, then or now, why they made that decision > although their was wide speculation at the time that they > intended to deliberately violate the standard that emerged and > wanted plausible deniability about participation. Lots of > reasons; lots of circumstances. > > > An audio input model (ie, conference call model) still > > provides plenty of advantage to physical attendees, while also > > providing remote participants a chance to have their say in a > > more emphatic and real-time format. We're not talking about > > building a telepresence system for all remote participants, or > > using robots as avatars. > > IIR, we've tried audio input. It works really well for > conference-sized meetings (e.g., a dozen or two dozen people > around a table) with a few remote participants. It works really > well for a larger group (50 or 100 or more) and one or two > remote participants. I've even co-chaired IETF WG meetings > remotely that way (with a lot of help and sympathy from the > other co-chair or someone else taking an in-room leadership > role). > > But, try it for several remote participants and a large room > full of people, allow for audio delays in both directions, and > about the last thing one needs is a bunch of disembodied voices > coming out of the in-room audio system at times that are not > really coordinated with what is going on in the room. Now it > can all certainly be made to work: it takes a bit of > coordination on a chat (or equivalent) channel, requests to get > in or out of the queue that are monitored from within the room, > and someone managing those queues along with the mic lines. > But, by that point, many of the disadvantage of audio input > relative to someone reading from Jabber have disappeared and the > other potential problems with audio input -- noise, level > setting, people who are hard to understand even if they are in > the room, and so on-- start to dominate. Would I prefer audio > input to typing into Jabber under the right conditions? Sure, > in part because, while I type faster than average it still isn't > fast enough to compensate for the various delays. But it really > isn't a panacea for any of the significant problems. > > >> (2) Trying to figure out exactly what remote participation > >> (equipment, staffing, etc.) will cost the IETF and then trying > >> to assess those costs to the remote participants would be > >> madness for multiple reasons. [...snip...] > > > > Yet you're proposing charging remote participants to bear the > > costs. I'm confused. > > I am proposing charging remote participants a portion of the > overhead costs of operating the IETF, _not_ a fee based on the > costs of supporting remote participation. And, again, I want > them to have the option of deciding how much of it they can > reasonably afford to pay. Maybe the IETF should charge for mailing list subscriptions too? Scott K