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

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse <[e-mail]>]

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

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

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