On 12/04/16 01:34, Miles Fidelman wrote: > > On 4/11/16 8:30 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: >> I also have no doubt one could do a 1000 person remote meeting. >> >> That being said, I've tried to do remote attendence at meetings >> both where there is a small timezone offset and a large timezone >> offset. The small timezone offset "works" but in no way replaces >> face to face meetings. The large timezone offset only works if you >> have 1 or 2 working groups to want to attend. >> >> Face to face forces attendees to be mostly in sync with respect to >> the timezone. BA was a 10 hour shift for me but it was do able. >> > > Well, keep in mind that a 1000-person in-person meeting is pretty hard > as well. Sure, it works as a plenary session, but in-person working > meetings also break down at pretty low numbers. > > Now, if one thinks about multiple, simultaneous, remote meetings - of > 10-50 people each - things start to sound a more feasible. "Sound more feasible"? Perhaps. Add TZ's and remote input issues that we face with today's technology and that may no longer be convincing. I've been a bit involved in the session planning for the last dozen or so IETF meetings - I reckon adding a TZ constraint for each/many participants would have broken all of those. There are also typically 8 sessions in parallel at IETF meetings, the largest of which often involves between one and two hundred folks in one session so things do not in fact break down into 10-50 people sub things, at least today. Add all that up and I think we're "sounding" utterly impractical. (That said, I do still need to check out the David Farmer's response in this thread.) S. > > Just a thought, > > Miles Fidelman > > >
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>