I've done remote meetings going back to the days of when we had to
make mbone work first. (it worked once!!!)
I've probably done a dozen or so remote meetings.
Loa Andersson <loa@xxxxx> wrote:
> Let me first say that I very much appreciate the effort made by
> e.g. the meetecho people. The experience of listening to a meeting on
> meetecho and sitting in the room listening is very close. All the time
> until someone that sits in the middle of the room don't care to go the
> mike to make a comment, but just shout it out. When this happens you
> just don't lose the comment, but you also lose much of the context for
> the continued discussion.
Right, so this is why it's better for everyone to be remote.
> It quite often happens (it has happened to me) that someone notify the
> chairs that "there is someone wanting to say something on the
> meetecho", only when that happens that particular discussion is already
> "taken to the list".
Yes, bad chair discipline.
> But an IETF meeting is so much more than the moderate number of hours
> you spend in meeting rooms, if you participate remotely you miss what
> is probably the most important aspect of an IETF F2F - the 10-15
> corridor meetings you have each day.
I totally agree.
> I'd say cancel SFO and move to place where we all have an equal chance
> to attend, even if you have made a business trip to Iran or somewhere
> else in the Middle East, and where we don't have to give out passwords
> to e.g. laptops that may contain business critical information.
If we can do that, I agree. Lets do that.
If we can't outright cancel, but can renegotiate significantly, my suggestion
stands. Move the meeting and make SFO a US left-coast remote hub.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature