Dear IESG,
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 7:40 PM Toerless Eckert <tte@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 08:25:43PM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
> {gratutious incompatible product name removed}
Please keep up the linux flame!
(maybe for the IETF crowd it would even make sense try to set up a
petition to be signed..) Ok, different topic.
> We've have experienced that rooms that are meeting rooms might have working
> meetecho, but the problem is that we don't have any meetecho supervision at
> the time.
Right.
> I continue to think that BarBOFs should happen in a bar, and that the side
> meeting phenomenon with remote participation is the result of over-scheduling
> of participants.
That may be so, but is not the case i was concerned about.
Side meetings are also about topics first trying to get organized
and raise enough interest to start using he formal process options (BOF, WG).
FWIW, this is what the IESG has been targeting with HotRFC (helping to self-organize people to come up with proposals that make sense to start in the IETF process).
We started HotRFC as targeting on-site participants - the first two or three times, we didn't have remote participation available at all, only providing presenter's elevator pitch slides in the proceedings.
If it's possible to allow remote presenters for Vancouver, and encourage presenters to set up videoconferencing and add those coordinates in their slides, that would likely be helpful.
I should probably ask the IESG if they've thought about HotRFC for remote participants in Vancouver - adding them now.
Best,
Spencer
And those cases are the ones where the currenty policy of the IETF comes
into play that "you can have an IETF room", but "you can not have an
IETF conf-tool", because obviously (?) rooms do not indicate any support
for the topic in question, whereas a conference call could be. At least
thats the bet explanation i have found so far.
> If you want to have a virtual BOF, then have one, just don't try to cram it
> into the week. If you want to make use of high-bandwidth in-person
> discussion to make a small design team work better, then do that, but don't
> pretend that remote participants can really participate in such a thing.
> Take good minutes, and run decisions by the group.
A BOF would have meetecho, as its an official side-meeting i was
think of inofficial side-meetings.
I think we can leave it up to the individual participants to figure out
what type of meeting is best served at which time or type of presence,
there is no single solution best in all cases. But three are options
we do not have virtual alternative for. like inofficial side meetings.
And it would be easy to close those gaps. Just a matter of policy, not
additional work (with option <name-too-horrific-for-michael>). Of
course with meetecho it would be more work.
> Conferencing systems are widely available for a variety of prices (including
> gratis, having no SLA).
Sure. My point was solely about the IETF having strange policies that
IMHO inappropriately distinguish between physcial an virtual rooms and
i would like to see that fixed.
Cheers
Toerless
