Re: [113attendees] hybrid meetings: the worst of both worlds

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 04:25:23PM +0200, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
> I do not think that the organizers are at fault here, they seem to
> have gone out of their way to support both on-site and remote
> participation, and am sure that they will provide some form of
> infrastructure at future meetings to assist with breaking out
> :-)-O

This discuss was only about side-meetings, not official IETF business,
but of course, there is the official code of conduct for side meetings
from the IETF chair reciting IESG side meeting policy and that code of conduct
does not talk about encouraging enablemenet of remote participation for
side-meetings. And given how we only had remote meetings and this is about the
first time where this was a real problem, its really a new thing. That
type of encouragement would be what IETF officially could at least say
IMHO about side-meetings.

> What I observed repeatedly, however, in this context, was
> thoughtlessness from participants and occasionally what I (a
> newcomer) felt was arrogance.

Dismissiveness and other acts of rough conversation are time honored traditions
of IETF participants and leadership, and as a newcomer it is expected of you to 
act assertive and respectful (maybe even obnoxious ;-) against them so communication styles
slowly improve.

In the old days, you could gain easy initial participation credits by yelling
"mike"(rophone) into the room 10 times, when local participants where not
doing it during a meeting, but engage in local conversation. Alas, i think we've
gotten somewhat more advanced now, so you may need to engage in real ugly credits like note
taking or the like - or maybe suggesting to help with remote participation setup ? ;-)

Cheers
    Toerless

> el
> 
> On 2022-03-28 16:13 , Toerless Eckert wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 08:47:04AM -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> >> Toerless seems to declare that if the participants can not
> >> practically arrange remote participation options for that
> >> discussion then tehy can not have that meeting as described?
> >> That seems like hurting ourselves.
> >
> > In that particular case i got so annoyed about this time, the
> > person who promoted the ad-hoc side-meeting on the WG microphone
> > in the room during the WG meeting could have simply asked the
> > room "if there is anyone who could help doing a remote
> > participation setup, we would appreciate it".  That did not
> > happen.
> >
> > "Good faith effort to not exclude remote" when you are
> > explicitly talking to a hybrid audience ?  Its perfectly fine
> > for remote to be not included once you're after the meeting
> > organizing something in-person only with in-person people.
> >
> >> It should be remembered that wide ranging discussions can be
> >> difficult even face to face.  Providing full effective remote
> >> participation is desirable, but is hard and in my view can't be
> >> a requirement for permitting such side meetings.
> >
> > Sure.  Participation selection and management is a multi-faceted
> > problem.  But i think that local/remote is in many cases
> > orthogonal to other considerations or at least it should be
> > IMHO. And i feel that instead, we see location as a welcome
> > pseuo-argument for discrimination.  If you're remote and you're
> > considered important by the organizers, they will do anything
> > they can to still make it (meeting) happen with you.  If you're
> > not considered important by the organizers, then they're happy
> > to use the remote argument for exclusion.  And i simply
> > disapprove of thinking like that (as one example).
> >
> > Cheers
> >      Toerless
> [...]
> 
> -- 
> Dr Eberhard W Lisse
> Managing Director
> Namibian Network Information Center (Pty) Ltd.
> PO Box 8421 Bachbrecht 10007 Namibia
> If this email is signed with GPG, Sect 20 Act No 4 of 2019 may apply
> 
> -- 
> 113attendees mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/113attendees

-- 
---
[e-mail]