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

David Waite <dwaite@gmail.com> Mon, 28 March 2022 22:29 UTC

Return-Path: <dwaite@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: 113attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 113attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BC673A00B1 for <113attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 15:29:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 NIX-JOGMVGZU for <113attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 15:29:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2c.google.com (mail-io1-xd2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F6293A011B for <113attendees@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 15:29:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2c.google.com with SMTP id p21so4958764ioj.4 for <113attendees@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 15:29:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=iX0u0FO9T4jpkKjyMFE8RByX1d52THCoyNO7652qiKw=; b=DroZedP8Zam1UdDM53CE6Eqp3JHkxd5KFAMfD4GFLecpWMeG8IFLMRkLEryLWXFLR4 LvkvB83wIiHTHRN81rB0KKgH5voCmZZwDHXLH/oT3Uq9Dnom8ybb1B10NNSzFOo7lB8e yqfwN2E3mMny5Ukn/z+hbkfDmwQrB7R+aJLWnq8o2mY2BpryzI24yZaOTN3icwK7AZwb /j28LUPGl8nb3md/E4vJRGmdQ4/d7ycXUIDT8UaKw755l1O1NX5JQil/eAyhFRBJg0Yx 27rQZt1L77jjTH8PPC631tYVcNc/G0sv9WvLTznvM+s1c35mkMebTbcciRSviemRCTgT inPg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=iX0u0FO9T4jpkKjyMFE8RByX1d52THCoyNO7652qiKw=; b=E1vMcNT2X/Y4jYUdiKdvhYqcqczhtzSPLIkH+pUVJCAIcaOTzosYaftgsawupCstbP lDGXoLfohl+fjfrkkvf30fxu4bujHMWnnGJWVA1qF4oB8FBKxm4y5RgAmrvKn4ZtQih4 6qwzwrCvpDIIgDcCT7fEYa9rDRywfSlRBED96XjCfvhyzUfnYdCRZxT2mdWI+TrY2fr9 q4VFE90/iRsNeL/8RCV+VZa6pBFUvn0iibJ3N1qaeAr4Napfmd9qgM6zCjMZ2ms1b2jN 1e7Aflv2gdOUQc/2wba1b6/eLk1+u68EnW4hcsbWjVHJy4Co3rQCIGQXSUasCY6+DwzK HwtA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530megxocpAUtflxkR8egsFwpBZgcSAerCt+TfxvFkMkeX1WGwaY GOrssRRM+XN6KLp0y58APLo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy2eSiC5UXnaMke+QJ7qzHJ0V3syS8lFXNfHwA2ZKd5LTn9VNDHeSLu4Z6BKavUSwKXeJKrwQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a5e:8a07:0:b0:64c:8b33:6d19 with SMTP id d7-20020a5e8a07000000b0064c8b336d19mr1097959iok.170.1648506541190; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 15:29:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([2601:282:200:2a20:1833:d96:34de:3a13]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c15-20020a5d8b4f000000b00648f75d0289sm8379414iot.6.2022.03.28.15.29.00 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Mar 2022 15:29:00 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.80.82.1.1\))
From: David Waite <dwaite@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <Yj5ee80R0JtkDsj4@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 16:28:59 -0600
Cc: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, Robert Moskowitz <rgm@labs.htt-consult.com>, 113attendees <113attendees@ietf.org>, Leif Johansson <leifj@sunet.se>, Antoine FRESSANCOURT <antoine.fressancourt=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2F3CBAD3-1A3E-43CE-9440-7D774528605E@gmail.com>
References: <91b2da16-46e1-2370-d0f9-786934637c09@sunet.se> <132b08c49caa41e6a0be75c53841bb42@huawei.com> <e41b5a7a-df0b-e778-dc89-4fc78fc482ef@labs.htt-consult.com> <CAPt1N1k01kNqkXAfG=Mh4nvrp0apDRise6N39u++yBU_kd-Tkw@mail.gmail.com> <Yj5ee80R0JtkDsj4@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
To: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.80.82.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/113attendees/9UCsao2ZQCIMQWZeGmrdk-PyzME>
Subject: Re: [113attendees] remote-inclusiveness (was: Re: hybrid meetings: the worst of both worlds)
X-BeenThere: 113attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for IETF 113 attendees <113attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/113attendees>, <mailto:113attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/113attendees/>
List-Post: <mailto:113attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:113attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/113attendees>, <mailto:113attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 22:29:10 -0000

My position is that the idea of being remote-inclusive means that it is not a hybrid event - it is an in-person event with some remote participation options.

In 2020/2021 I attended events which were remote, with an in-person attendance option. There are drastic differences between in-person-first vs remote-first experiences.

For example, a remote-first setup may involve pre-recorded presentations with separate Q&A, split schedules with replayed presentations for chunks of time zones. You also see less parallel, multi-week schedule since travel and venue costs weren’t their typical burdens. The IETF equivalent was a push for established groups to instead do virtual interims.

I have a suspicion that there is no happy hybrid medium between the two. You see some things done entirely different with remote-first events to take advantage of the remote experience. You seem to have a trade-off between dynamic engagement and inclusiveness - but you have network effects at play, so you lose quite a bit when shooting for the middle.

Instead, we should continue to use virtual meetings and in-person IETF meetings as two separate tools within a remotely accessible process.

-DW

> On Mar 25, 2022, at 6:29 PM, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
> 
> Ok. I'll bite. Here is my hybrid rant:
> 
> 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.
> 
> This week i had to again to an announcement of an ad-hoc side-meeting at a WG
> meeting, where immediately remote participants asked if/how to participate remotely,
> and the organizer said "no remote participation, but we'll send notes". IMHO that
> is unacceptable. Especially when it is planned to be meeting somewhere in the
> IETF hotel, where it is easily possible to just have a notebook or cell phone with
> gather.town or any RTCweb tool and a Jabra Speak for great audio with remote
> participants.
> 
> Maybe a few Jabra Speak loaner at the registration desk or the like could help.
> and some easy wiki page explaining easy setups.  Its really puzzling how we're
> inventing so much great dog food for remote, and then at the easiest of opportunities,
> we don't eat it.
> 
> And for those remote-seggregationists who explicitly want to discriminate,
> i would suggest that announcements about any such activities can
> ONLY go to an on-site "white"-board, like what we used in the ietf before we
> started to use these remote-friendly tools like wiki pages. But IMHO, whenever
> remote accessible IETF/WG space is used to announce activities, we should look for
> those to be remote-friendly as much as possible.
> 
> And no: using the words "bar" and "bof" together is not a valid excuse for
> remote discrimination. Especially given how every time the audio of a chosen
> location is too bad to include remote participants for an actual technical discussion, 
> it is likely also too bad to include non-native-english participants well (SnR/comprehension/...).
> 
> At least i had exactly that frustrating experience in several actual loud-bar BoF
> meetings in the past, which i totally despised for exactly that reason. But i think
> there are now fewer of those.
> 
> Cheers
>    Toerless