Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 11 Apr 2016, at 1:45 PM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Don't have physical meetings. Then this entire problem space simply >> vanishes... ... to be replaced by other "unsolvable" problems: but ones where progress might be easier... >> YES, it's replaced by a different problem space, which roughly works out >> to "how can everything be done virtually?" ++ >> but given that this is the *Internet* engineering task force I have no >> doubt that the collective expertise is more than capable of dealing >> with that. I don't 100% share that enthusiam; but I do believe we'd see visible progress within a year or two. > I don't believe that this technology exists. That makes three of us agreeing! > People have been singing the praise of Meetecho in IETF 95, and yet > remote participation is nothing like being in the room. True... I can be attending to my email, or even pouring through a deskful of background papers, and nobody will chide me for not listening! > And the "virtual interim" meetings are nothing like physical meetings... Less true... I have participated in some very effective virtual meetings. It's a matter of how the Chair runs things. (And that _is_ variable!) >> Particularly if all the discussion, effort, and expense going into the >> logistics of physical meetings is redirected into virtual ones instead. > > Yeah, perhaps, some day when we're all wearing virtual reality headsets > and our avatars are hanging out in a virtual venue, and we all have > sufficient equipment and bandwidth to handle all that. It really has nothing to do with such gimmicks! For IETF-95 I used a $500 large-screen for the first time. It certainly didn't give me $500 of benefit over the multiple 20-inch screens I usually use, but large-screens don't cost $500 anymore. ;^) I wouldn't use a V-R headset if it were a gift. Avatars would get in the way of expressing differing attitudes. The whole field of how to show non-local participants needs work! > We're not there yet. We're not even agreed where "there" should be. >> I really can't take any of the platitudes about "inclusion" seriously >> until that happens -- because as long as the IETF persists with physical >> meetings, most people *will* be excluded due to cost, distance, time, >> legal climate, personal safety, etc. Guilty as charged. >> The IETF is, even if accidentally, selecting for the elite few who are >> fortunate enough to be [able to] attend. Guilty as charged, again. I've had quite a number of high-school students working here who could have become valuable participants at IETF. Exactly _one_ of them agreed to attend an IETF week; and that one would never consent to attend another. We are selecting mostly those whose employers send them in hopes of getting a return-on-investment. I long for the days when we attracted lots of graduate students! > Virtual meetings with the technology we have today makes it very hard for > people with mediocre English to follow the discussion. It's hard for them in-person on-site, too. Why aren't we discussing tools to help them? > The "I don't quite follow what you're saying" look does not translate > well to the kind of video we can use today. False! It merely doesn't translate to the kind of video we _do_ use today. > That extends even to people with relatively good English (for non-native > speakers) like me. So, to fall back to my standard question: "What are you going to do about it?" -- John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx>