Re: [113attendees] remote-inclusiveness (was: Re: hybrid meetings: the worst of both worlds)

[Jay Daley <[e-mail]>]

Hi Toerless

> On 28/03/2022, at 9:03 AM, Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> These mail threads of course encourage primarily contrarian pondering.
> I think we do get more substantial understanding of the overall community
> opinion by those questionaires that JohnD started to do. Aka: it would be
> useful to have over time more question with the experience with the different
> type of get-togethers. As long as they cover relevnt questions. Such as 
> usefulness or its opposite in the face of different audio qualities of a
> particular venue (such as a bar).
> 
> Wrt to resisting more remote-inclusiveness: Its clear that if we do not have
> a group trying to push the envelope, we wouldn't have moved away from the
> local-only state we had 30 years ago. That's just human nature. And i am sure
> that if we would look back, we'll find enough evidence of participants rejecting
> even the idea of what we have achieved so far (with meetecho/gather) as impossible
> or undesirable back then.
> 
> I have just seen outside of IETF over the decades a lot more remote-inclusive
> options that i think are also worth to explore for IETF. Sitting in a side-meeting
> room in the IETF and NOT having a remote participation option for example strikes
> me as particularily objectionable. Sitting in a bar and trying to get actual
> technical work done, but then not understanding anyone due to background noise
> equally so.

Side meetings are deliberately very different from other sessions as repeatedly stated by the IESG:

https://www.ietf.org/blog/public-side-meetings/

Significant effort has been put into improving the remote experience during IETF meetings but, for the reasons in that blog post, not side meetings.  While I understand your frustration regarding side meetings, an assessment of remote participation for the whole meeting based on an experience in a side meeting will never be fair and representative. 

Jay

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director 
[e-mail]
> 
> Yes, spending more time by doing local and then remote meetings would be nice,
> but i already know that only a minority of people that where able to meet locally
> would make themselves available remotely to the same degree.
> 
> Cheers
>    Toerless
> 
>> On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 07:04:56PM -0600, Kyle Rose wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 26, 2022, 6:54 AM Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> I've been doing 1 meeting remote since around 2004.
>>> I got multicast IP to work once, but then the IETF abandonned that method.
>>> I know all about how remote people get "excluded", but ...
>>> 
>>> Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> One wish i have is that people on-site should be remote-inclusive
>>>> whenever they do announce/organize an activity that easily could
>>>> include remote participation.
>>> 
>>> I don't have that wish.
>>> I wish that people who want to organize side meetings with remote people
>>> would just have a "zoom" meeting next week, with all the people remote.
>>> 
>>>> And no: using the words "bar" and "bof" together is not a valid
>>> excuse
>>> 
>>> I want us to return to bar bofs happenning in bars with beer and napkins.
>>> 
>> 
>> Agreed.
>> 
>> More generally, there would be little point in traveling were all
>> interactions handicapped to the degree that would be required for full
>> remote participant equity. The IETF should provide reasonable accommodation
>> for remote attendees (which IMO includes things like the new local/remote
>> mic queue discipline) but accept that there is value in *being there* that
>> cannot be replicated by remote attendees via any near-term telepresence
>> technology.
>> 
>> Moreover, the IETF should not apologize for wanting to maximize the
>> benefits of the reality we inhabit. These are constraints not under our
>> control.
>> 
>> Kyle
>> 
>>> 
> 
> -- 
> ---
> [e-mail]
> 
> -- 
> 113attendees mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/113attendees
>