--On Sunday, July 26, 2015 18:07 -0400 Victor Kuarsingh
<victor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>...
> Well, I have done two IETFs remotely over the past two years
> (London and Dallas). I will admit, it was difficult.
> However, I don't know if I agree that it was the technology
> and/or the zooming which was the biggest issue.
I hope you don't think I said that. On the other hand, it would
seem that the absolute easiest, and lowest-cost, thing we could
do that would be a big help would be to get people --both
speakers in front of the room and those at floor microphones--
to clearly say their names before beginning to talk. We've had
that as a requirement for far longer than Meetecho has been on
the scene. Far too many people can't be bothered to do it (or
forget in the heat of discussion) and far too few chairs can
remember to try to enforce it or at least to remind people.
> I think we can defiantly improve on how we manage our tech for
> the IETF (for remote folks), but I think the biggest
> inhibitors are behavioral ones (vs. tech).
See above and note Melinda's comments about effectively getting
into the queue and the longstanding problem that, even when one
gets into the queue remotely, one's comments may seem obsolete
by the time one gets the floor (and then, as Tony points out,
things don't always work then they should. That is a
combination of social/behavioral and technical issues. Unless
people in the room undergo a significant change in personality
and attitude, I think we need to solve both.
> Personally, I would be ok with a "zoomed out" camera, as I
> think reading the room and getting a feel for what's going on
> is more important then seeing a given presenters face (plus,
> if we have concerns with a presenters face, can't we just get
> profile picks put on the deck / agenda?). I would like to see
> how is coming up to the mic just as much as I would looking at
> someone boxed in at a mic.
One example of why I keep talking about resources is that you
(and others) are presenting a false choice in the above.
Meetecho (and most of its competitors) are designed in part for
meetings in which multiple parties are remote, with all parties
having their own cameras. I assume it would be easy,
technically, to display multiple images -- the presenter, the
chairs, the room, the floor mic-- and let remote participants
watch whichever one or ones are most useful to them. It just
means multiple cameras and people to keep an eye on them.
Similarly, I hope we don't need to contemplate replacing simple
"please get me in the queue" or "hand up" actions with, e.g., a
several-kilolumen strobe light that can be triggered remotely
and shut off only when the remote person has been able to speak
and, if needed, ask questions and get answers, but maybe we
should be contemplating if for WGs that can't get with the
program.
> I would prefer we improve how we allow remote folks to comment
> and interact. People in the room have a strong advantage when
> it comes to getting to a mic, and re-inserting themselves if
> rebutting a comment etc. I think it's here were the remote
> folks lack the most participation.
Yes. It has always been that way. For a long time (and with
some justification), we blamed the tools. However, technical
failures and unpredictability notwithstanding, effective remote
participation depends most highly on the dynamics in the room
and, especially, whether the meeting chairs care enough about
remote participation and participants, and are sensitive enough
to the issues they face, to make things work. I've seen remote
input work when there is only audio output, an alert jabber
scribe/ channeler, and a WG Chair who is willing to treat the
person reading remote input as at the front of the line
(recognizing the time it takes to type something in, read it,
and get up and into the line). I've also seen it fail (inside
the IETF and elsewhere) with every high-tech arrangements the
community could come up with because whatever was going on the
room was not supportive or because, whatever the technology was,
it wasn't predictably available and usable.
I don't think it is what you are saying, but I do not believe
that "until you fix problem X, there is no point looking at
(largely independent) problem Y" is a useful way to move forward
with solutions. Yes, I think we need to fix the social issues
and, in particular, chair attitudes and responsibility. Yes, I
believe we would benefit from a rule that no meeting session
starts until the remote participation arrangements are in place
and working (that includes "no jabber scribe, no meeting") and
that we should probably have a zero-tolerance, immediate firing,
policy toward WG Chairs who ignore such rules. Session agendas
need to be meaningful and posted in advance. If a speaker is
going to use slides, they need to be up well in advance. There
should be provision for exceptions, but a Chair who allows too
many of them is not suitable for the job. However, I also think
we need to get the technology issues fixed -- the remote
transmission problems; effective ways to signal desire to speak;
camera angles, focus, and fields of view; etc.
> Oh and yes, all the hallway and beer conversations are sadly
> missed.
At least absent Nathaniel's robot or its relatives, probably
hard to fix. It is not clear that the robot scales and, even if
it did, if any significant number of us were to depend on them,
it would introduce a whole new set of accessibility constraints
into meeting planning.
john