Re: Registration for remote participation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Stephen,

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

No major objection but a few minor comments:-

- I'd be happier if there was a re-iteration that we're not going
to charge remote folks until the remote input experience is much
better and the community have agreed to such charging.
- I think there ought be some ack that this policy (if applied)
may be tee-ing up charging remote folks, as something that might
be needed depending on how the remove/on-site ratios evolve. (It
seemed odd to me that charging was not mentioned.)


As someone who argued against mentioning registration fees when Alissa shared a draft, you can at least partially blame me for the oddity.  I still don't think it belongs in this message, because what we face at the moment is data so noisy that we can't tell how many people we're serving at all nor who and where they are.  Because we can't tell who we're serving, we can't tell whether the service is fit for the purpose very easily.

If they are primarily folks in the hotel, who can't be in two rooms at once, we have one set of issues; if they are primarily folks at the end of low bandwidth, high RTT paths to the venue, we have a very different set of issues.  We also don't know reliably whether we have a small coterie of very dedicated remote participants or a wide smattering of folks dipping their toes in for a session or two. 

We need that data first. 

Once we have it, there may be many things in the set of ways to support the service that come to light; since those might be fund raising from external parties rather than charging, I don't think we ought to anticipate that stage at this one.

Hope that makes sense,

Ted

 
 
- IIRC, there were a couple of times in the 2 meetings when I was
remote where I needed to get in to meetecho a 2nd time with a
different ID. While that particular bug may be fixed (or maybe
was on my side, not meetecho's) it'd be a shame if folks could
not do that kind of thing. I'm not sure how that'd best be handled.

Cheers,
S.

On 09/05/17 20:01, IETF Chair wrote:
> For remote participants at IETF meetings, registration is currently optional. Remote participants may join a session at an IETF meeting by entering any name or pseudonym of their choice into the current form used for logging in to MeetEcho.
>
> The IESG is soliciting community feedback on a proposal to require registration for remote participants at IETF meetings. The objective of requiring registration for real-time remote participation is to provide better data to the IETF community and leadership about the size and make-up of the remote participant base. As remote participation grows, having more reliable remote participation data will allow the service to be better tailored to those using it and the community as a whole, and will help us understand the potential impact of remote participation on in-person participation. We understand that even with required registration the data collected will not be perfect, complete, or unspoofable, but we believe it would provide a more credible basis for analysis than the data available today.
>
> The proposal is as follows:
>
> Remote participants would be required to register (for free) by providing the information below (* denotes required fields). Registration would be mandatory to access MeetEcho sessions in real time and to join the remote mic queue during a session.
>
> Title
> First / Given Name*
> Last / Family Name*
> Company / Organization
> ISO 3166 Country of Residence*
> Email*
> Gender
> Have you attended an IETF meeting in person before?
> Have you attended an IETF meeting remotely before?
>
> Upon registering, participants would be issued a registration ID, just as they are today.
>
> To join a session, participants would be asked to input the registration ID. The same email-based facility that is currently available to retrieve a forgotten registration ID would continue to be available. The cookie-based “Remember me” option would also still be available. The only difference from how login works today is that the option to "Join without registration ID" would be removed. Other options for authentication (leveraging a user-chosen password or datatracker credentials) might be explored further in the future.
>
> Remote participation registration data would be stored and secured by AMS and MeetEcho just as it is currently today. As is the case now, no registration or login would be required to access MeetEcho recordings, audio recordings, YouTube videos, or jabber rooms. And no changes are being proposed as to the handling of virtual blue sheets.
>
> We'd like to hear from the community about this proposal. Please send comments to ietf@xxxxxxxx <mailto:ietf@xxxxxxxx>, or exceptionally to iesg@xxxxxxxx <mailto:iesg@xxxxxxxx>, preferably by May 30, 2017.
>
> Thanks,
> The IESG
>
>
>



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]