How probable is it that remote presenters will spend most of their allocated 4 minutes trying to find the unmute button?
On 3/3/20 6:47 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>
--
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Email: marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Blog: https://marc.petit-huguenin.org
Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
