--On Thursday, November 16, 2017 13:59 -0800 S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi John, >... >> One is the rapid switching Brian mentions above. If one >> concludes, midway in a WG session, that one needs to speak up >> or say something on Jabber, the odds are high that the >> conversation will have passed the topic by if one has to >> pause and go through a registration procedure rather than >> just switching modes. That is, IMO, the important issue on a >> short-term basis. > Over the years it was possible to comment in a Jabber room > without having to click through a "Note Well" and it is still > like that today. Yes. And from the standpoint of the IETF being able to document who is influencing decisions about standards is a bad idea. How bad is a question for lawyers and may depend on one's assessment of the likelihood of someone getting upset about, or feeling that they have been hurt by, IETF decisions to challenge the fairness and openness of the process. What situation we would be in if someone mounted that sort of challenge and we couldn't document participants, balance, etc., is also a question for lawyers, preferably ones with a crystal ball supply, but other SDOs who have found themselves with that sort of problem have not found it to be pleasant experience. > Meetecho Observer mode is audio only; it > used to be audio and video after Meetecho was introduced. If that has actually changed, I think it is very problematic. I don't recall any discussions or decisions that should have changed it. >> THe other is the cost of doing this remote participation >> stuff, costs that are going to rise if things some of us have >> discussed to make things work better or more smoothly are >> implemented > > The expenses for remote participation is 4.7% of meeting > expenses. That depends on how and what one counts. And that isn't a topic I want to get drawn into especially outside IASA 2.0 discussions about how transparent the IAOC has been and whether the community cares. best, john