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

NA-NiC <dns-admin@na-nic.com.na> Fri, 25 March 2022 16:29 UTC

Return-Path: <el@lisse.na>
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 4ED9D3A164C for <113attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Mar 2022 09:29:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.659
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.659 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 humumeKkzUKr for <113attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Mar 2022 09:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fra.omadhina.net (fra.omadhina.net [80.240.31.104]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 849443A16E9 for <113attendees@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Mar 2022 09:29:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.86.175] (134.101.241.94.dynamic-cablemodem.pop104-arris.ipv4.wtnet.de [134.101.241.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fra.omadhina.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2B9007FA51; Fri, 25 Mar 2022 16:29:13 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2022 17:28:07 +0100
From: NA-NiC <dns-admin@na-nic.com.na>
To: 113attendees <113attendees@ietf.org>
Cc: nanic <dns-admin@na-nic.com.na>
Message-ID: <2bacd3c6-456b-4f14-a03d-82830f338d1b@Spark>
In-Reply-To: <132b08c49caa41e6a0be75c53841bb42@huawei.com>
References: <91b2da16-46e1-2370-d0f9-786934637c09@sunet.se> <132b08c49caa41e6a0be75c53841bb42@huawei.com>
X-Readdle-Message-ID: 2bacd3c6-456b-4f14-a03d-82830f338d1b@Spark
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="623dedd7_71f32454_1274"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/113attendees/o5ZHUxtF7QVgcqsrIQTTg0O4XLQ>
Subject: Re: [113attendees] 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: Fri, 25 Mar 2022 16:29:19 -0000

Antoine,

I came there to listen, and sat in a number of different tracks in addition to DNSOP which is where my interest lies, and agree with every point you made.

Many presentations were incredibly detailed, with very busy and sometime impossible to read slides, quite long with very little time for debate. While not everybody has good verbal presentation skills, maybe this is something to look at. Kawasaki’s 10-20-30(20) rule comes to mind.

And almost on every single presentation there was an issue with screen sharing in the beginning, which decreased in amusement value quickly over the days.

The chair microphones were in most rooms not loud enough to understand at the back of the rooms, the remote audio was great.

I did like the IETFer App, but would have liked to be able to check in to the Blue Sheet from the App  instead of just the QR.

el

—
Sent from Dr Lisse’s iPhone/iPad
On 25. Mar 2022, 16:58 +0100, Antoine FRESSANCOURT <antoine.fressancourt=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, 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.
> - 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

 […]