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

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On 2022-3-28, at 11:49, Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Deliberately providing physical space (rooms), but not webex space for side
> meeting strikes me as highly illogical. That is an IESG policy issue. I claim it
> is a remote-unfriendly policy.

the IETF is not "deliberately providing physical space", i.e., we do not contract extra meeting space so that side meetings can be held.

What we do offer is the use of rooms that are used for other purposes some of the time (e.g., for IESG and IAB breakfast meetings, etc.) when they would otherwise sit empty.

We provide a wiki for people to coordinate the use of these rooms during such times, so that they can avoid scheduling during times when the rooms are blocked for their original purposes, and they can also avoid conflicts with each other. (Which did happen before the wiki was offered for coordination.)

> Deliberately NOT using remote participation tools in a side-meeting strikes
> me as highly remote-unfriendly. That is a side-meeting organizer issue.

I agree.

> The linkage is of course that side meeting organizers not well versed in remote-friendly
> tooling might have an easier time if the IETF policy would make its tools available
> to them. Like it is for finding a room.

> Aka: as long as IETF policy in support of remote participation in side meetings
> is as it is compared to its support for in-person meeting (rooms), its really
> difficult to give side-meeting organizers a hard time when they choose NOT to support
> remote participation.

Most participants by now have two year's experience with running online meetings as part of their dayjobs, and most have access to their organizational Zoom/Webex/etc. setups. I remain unconvinced that a lack of knowledge or access to an A/V service is the issue here.

Thanks,
Lars