Re: [111attendees] test

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Fri, 23 July 2021 14:45 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Original-To: 111attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 111attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C7563A0D03 for <111attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 07:45:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nSFBz3QE8Y3U for <111attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 07:45:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 793A93A0D02 for <111attendees@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 07:45:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:51]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 895C654804C; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 16:45:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 7D2394E7B12; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 16:45:46 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 16:45:46 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: Robert Moskowitz <rgm@labs.htt-consult.com>, 111attendees@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20210723144546.GM57276@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <af8652ed-179a-78d5-eb47-02302ba5e5c2@labs.htt-consult.com> <F7AA1B7F-23E8-48FB-B89B-AB2DAF1F1F8A@gmail.com> <CAAm_rSJcKNJchYt2_CEwBFQapQ3bDfbPXrJQkHQnsKW2i193Dw@mail.gmail.com> <ecad2565-6447-2065-53c6-f46d55666888@nthpermutation.com> <m2wnphq4ko.wl-randy@psg.com> <758515384.164289.1627031655741@appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com> <0043DCA8-C794-4146-AC2A-F1600ACA2D98@tzi.org> <20210723132655.GI57276@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <914b8bfd-064f-974a-f997-bfda1a70cdad@labs.htt-consult.com> <CAPt1N1=kX6=A_6=HOFgTqTxu=V5Lui+GPd+A=nDXPPLC7_hLUQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1=kX6=A_6=HOFgTqTxu=V5Lui+GPd+A=nDXPPLC7_hLUQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/111attendees/fMjWxt-0sCWQbLdBaBnZ_Kwqubc>
Subject: Re: [111attendees] test
X-BeenThere: 111attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for IETF 111 attendees <111attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/111attendees>, <mailto:111attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/111attendees/>
List-Post: <mailto:111attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:111attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/111attendees>, <mailto:111attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 14:46:04 -0000

Ted:

Everything you are concerned about will IMHO have complete
different (not necessarily better, just different) outcomes
when we would have only 300 on-site attendees and 800 remote.

For example, i already notice that there is often a lot of
side discussions on chat. Sometimes good, sometimes derailing.
This will definitely become a lot more with a
300/700 split. How to get the most out of that ? At minimum
i am thinking to start interjecting such chats with comments
like "interesting thought, would you mind making that
clean & pithy and add it to the etherpad notes if you don;t
bring it up on the mike". Or publishing the chat at the end
of the etherpad minutes ? 

And yes, i do still worry about remote audio quality.

Cheers
    Toerless

On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 07:10:39AM -0700, Ted Lemon wrote:
> Fundamentally the problem with mixed attendance is that it's possible to
> feel like you are having a successful meeting when it's not at all
> successful for the remote attendees. In order for there to be parity, it
> has to be the case that a failure of the remote service stops people from
> meeting in person. Which is hard to do, since the people who are there in
> person can just talk amongst each other regardless of what the official
> policy may be.
> 
> Hybrid meetings failed in the past because there was no collective
> discipline to operate in this way. There was a great deal of generous
> volunteer support for online participants in in-person meetings, and so it
> was sometimes possible to have a successful meeting, but we were depending
> heavily on the kindness and mindfulness of in-person participants, and it
> didn't consistently work out.
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 9:35 AM, Robert Moskowitz <rgm@labs.htt-consult.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > The single line mike could be upgraded with a cam, just like at the
> > presentation point.  this adds cost over, you can't speak in the room
> > unless you do it from your notebook/tablet/phone (chaos!)...
> >
> > Then the queue management is the mike(s) and online hands-raised.
> >
> > Or some such.
> >
> > On 7/23/21 9:26 AM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> >
> > I don't think this particular challenge (mixed online/in-person)
> > has really been getting enough attention.
> >
> > I for once think that it will only work well if the in-person
> > meeting part would require attendees even when being together
> > in a room to use their notebooks for discussions instead
> > of having a physical line at a single microphone, so that
> > there is more fairness between local and remote, but that
> > was never really discussed on manycouches or
> > picked up their documents. Yet i did hear it repeatedly
> > as a suggestion from other IEF'er that had to atend
> > remotely even before covid.
> >
> > Cheers
> >     Toerless
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 11:23:42AM +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> >
> > On 2021-07-23, at 11:14, Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola=40open-xchange.com@dmarc.ietf.org> <vittorio.bertola=40open-xchange.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> >
> > I'd rather settle for "let the people who can and want meet in person, as long as there are enough of them to make a meeting viable”.
> >
> > … and that, of course, means that this localized gathering is then jointly joining the global online meeting, and not the other way around.
> > The tail/dog thing.
> > Once that really works, we can more aggressively fall back to multiple regional hubs, until global traveling gets easier again.
> >
> > Grüße, Carsten
> >
> > --
> > 111attendees mailing list111attendees@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/111attendees
> >
> >
> > --
> > Standard Robert Moskowitz
> > Owner
> > HTT Consulting
> > C:      248-219-2059
> > F:      248-968-2824
> > E:      rgm@labs.htt-consult.com
> >
> > There's no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn't matter who gets
> > the credit
> >
> > --
> > 111attendees mailing list
> > 111attendees@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/111attendees
> >

> -- 
> 111attendees mailing list
> 111attendees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/111attendees


-- 
---
tte@cs.fau.de