Mary Barnes <mary.h.barnes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > [MB] True. But, perhaps considering other sorts of conference facilities > with nearby hotels could be an option. In particular, if we really do > improve remote participation to the point that we reduce the number of > onsite participants, the size requirement for the conference facilities > goes down. [/MB] +1 > [MB] ... The ability to participate in a meeting remotely with a > very rich multimedia experience is something that we certainly ought > to be able to do with the protocols we're developing. If we're not making progress, there's something wrong with the WG charters. > I have worked extensively in an environment where these technologies > are essential to business (as I imagine many of us having) and you > no longer need an expensive dedicated video unit to have a high > quality experience. We are developing these technologies in IETF > in the RTCWEB and CLUE WG. If we can't leverage those protocols for > our own meetings, then we've not done something right in the IETF. +1 > ... I think the biggest problem that high quality remote participation > will introduce is that companies will become even more reluctant to > send people to the face to face meetings. Many companies are _already_ reluctant... > I do still see value in people attending face to face IETF meetings > with some regularity, I strongly believe that IETF moving to a model > that doesn't require so many people to travel to get the work done > is a good thing and ought to be a longterm objective. Hasn't it _been_ one? Those of us who can't arrange the time and/or money are simply asking, "If not now, when?" -- John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx>