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

[Robert Moskowitz <[e-mail]>]

On 3/26/22 01:53, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
> What irritated me a bit, were several speakers who did not queue on 
> the meetecho, and just mumbled their name, so even sitting there I had 
> no idea who was speaking.
>
> I think it would be a great idea to provide some form of 
> infrastructure to assist in breaking out.

Enhancing the hackathon room/tables might be a good approach.  It would 
help remote hackathon participants as well as hybrid discussions.

>
> el
>
> —
> Sent from Dr Lisse’s iPhone/iPad
> On 26. Mar 2022, 01:30 +0100, Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>, 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
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 05:36:12PM +0100, Ted Lemon wrote:
>>> My experience of the meeting was that I had several really important
>>> conversations that I hadn't planned to have, nor would have had if we
>>> hadn't met. So it was definitely a net positive for me. The hallway
>>> conversations are precisely the thing that we miss being remote. I 
>>> like the
>>> "gather area" idea, but I think it probably needs a bit more 
>>> thought, and
>>> we'd have to arrange it so that people who didn't want to be on camera
>>> weren't accidentally captured, while still making it something you'd run
>>> into randomly. A difficult conundrum.
>>>
>>> As to the actual WG meetings, I am realizing that one of the main 
>>> purposes
>>> of these meetings is to trigger hallway discussions. I don't think 
>>> that was
>>> ever as obvious to me as it's been this time, because before this it was
>>> just what happened normally. IOW, not that the sessions don't matter at
>>> all—they do—but the synergy of sessions triggering discussions is what
>>> makes in-person IETF meetings what they are.
>>>
>>> Leif, I suspect that I was luckier than you were about which people with
>>> whom I needed to talk to showed up in person. Of course having most 
>>> people
>>> show up in person makes that less of a crap shoot.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 5:09 PM Robert Moskowitz 
>>> <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 3/25/22 11:57, Antoine FRESSANCOURT wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This was my first in person IETF meeting and while I enjoyed 
>>>> meeting people in person in the hallway and put a face on names I 
>>>> see on the mailing lists, I think the « official agenda » part of 
>>>> the meeting would have been a better experience online than onsite:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - the chat is not available on the mobile site for meetecho and 
>>>> lots of discussions occur there. « Oh it is discussed in the chat » 
>>>> is frustrating when you are in the room.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Before all of this many of us used a jabber client to be talking during
>>>> the session. You can always use whatever system you have with a jabber
>>>> client/server and go to jabber.ietf.org.
>>>>
>>>> And I used a separate jabber client (pidgin), so I was one of many that
>>>> were logged in twice.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - often we couldn’t see the face of people talking remotely
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - in many WG meetings, I had the impression to attend reporting 
>>>> that could have been an email while actual technical discussions on 
>>>> items of the WG were pushed to the mailing list for the sake of a 
>>>> lack of time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The last point might be the one that puzzles me the most. What is 
>>>> the point meeting in person to push discussions on online tools ? 
>>>> And why do we need to have WG activity reporting as slides rather 
>>>> than an email ?
>>>>
>>>> My 2 cents,
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Antoine FRESSANCOURT
>>>> Email: [e-mail]
>>>>
>>>> *From: *Leif Johansson<[e-mail]>
>>>> *To: *113attendees<[e-mail]>
>>>> *Subject: *[113attendees] hybrid meetings: the worst of both worlds
>>>> *Time: *2022-03-25 14:36:43
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I spent the week onsite in Wienna...
>>>>
>>>> As usual the arrangements are great and the local host made this a very
>>>> nice experience.
>>>>
>>>> And then there is the hybrid meeting thing... imo hybrid works well as
>>>> technology and completely sucks on a human level.
>>>>
>>>> This statement may be controversial and/or unpopular in the IETF where
>>>> we're all about the tech but...
>>>>
>>>> - hybrid means there is not enough folks onsite to create critical mass
>>>> for the "hallway track"
>>>> - remote-participation is arguably better for the technical WG process
>>>> than onsite at this point
>>>> - remote is really bad for the informal discussions (gather is very
>>>> disappointing imo)
>>>>
>>>> The most efficient WG were where most of the contributurs had 
>>>> decided to
>>>> show up onsite.
>>>>
>>>> The most important discussions I had were (as usual) not in a WG 
>>>> meeting.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe the IETF needs to rehink the purpouse of onsite meetings.
>>>>
>>>> We have made the remote experience so good that the "professionalized"
>>>> aspect of churning out RFCs doesn't really need onsite.
>>>>
>>>> However, an IETF with no human interaction might be professional but it
>>>> won't be efficient.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers Leif
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 113attendees mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/113attendees
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Robert Moskowitz
>>>> Owner
>>>> HTT Consulting
>>>> C: 248-219-2059
>>>> F: 248-968-2824
>>>> E: [e-mail]
>>>>
>>>> There's no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn't matter 
>>>> who gets
>>>> the credit
>>>> --
>>>> 113attendees mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/113attendees
>>>>
>>
>>> --
>>> 113attendees mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/113attendees
>>
>>
>> --
>> ---
>> [e-mail]
>>
>> --
>> 113attendees mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/113attendees
>

-- 
Standard Robert Moskowitz
Owner
HTT Consulting
C:248-219-2059
F:248-968-2824
E:[e-mail]

There's no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn't matter who 
gets the credit