Hi Sandy, > On Nov 7, 2018, at 8:29 PM, Sandra Murphy <sandy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Remote participation is hard even in the ideal. I’ve run into cases recently when it was harder than it needed to be. > > Last IETF, I was trying to listen in and ask questions remotely - I found that many wg did not have anyone assigned the role of transferring questions to the mike. And even if there was a person assigned, the remote latency meant that “any questions” asked in the room, followed 2 seconds later by “no? ok, on to next topic” did not leave enough time for remote questions to appear. This seems like another area where a refresh of WG chairs training is in order. I’ll work on that with the EDU team and my fellow ADs who have been running chair training. I suspect that as the MeetEcho service quality has become so good (in general) and more participants have become accustomed to it, the jabber channel has fallen back in people’s consciousnesses. That certainly seems to be what has happened to me. > > This IETF, there was no one assigned in the plenary to relay questions from the meetecho chat /jabber room to the mic. This was completely my fault for forgetting. As mentioned to SM, I’ve set a reminder for myself to ensure it doesn’t happen next time. I was furtively glancing at the MeetEcho queue throughout the plenary to see if there were remote participants in queue, but obviously that does not solve this problem. > > Is real-time remote participation a goal? Is it supposed to be supported enough that it is effective participation? Or is it just for those who are passive observers? The goal is certainly for remote participation to be effective, which relies on a combination of technology and human factors. It’s clear that we have work to do on the latter (myself included) while we’ve been lucky to have a high-quality service for the former. Apologies, Alissa > > —Sandy
