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

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

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.

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]