Re: Remote participation fees

[John Leslie <[e-mail]>]

Mary Barnes <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> [MB] True. But, perhaps considering other sorts of conference facilities
> with nearby hotels could be an option.  In particular, if we really do
> improve remote participation to the point that we reduce the number of
> onsite participants, the size requirement for the conference facilities
> goes down. [/MB]

   +1

> [MB] ... The ability to participate in a meeting remotely with a
> very rich multimedia experience is something that we certainly ought
> to be able to do with the protocols we're developing.

   If we're not making progress, there's something wrong with the WG
charters.

> I have worked extensively in an environment where these technologies
> are essential to business (as I imagine many of us having) and you
> no longer need an expensive dedicated video unit to have a high
> quality experience. We are developing these technologies in IETF
> in the RTCWEB and CLUE WG. If we can't leverage those protocols for
> our own meetings, then we've not done something right in the IETF.

   +1

> ... I think the biggest problem that high quality remote participation
> will introduce is that companies will become even more reluctant to
> send people to the face to face meetings.

   Many companies are _already_ reluctant...

> I do still see value in people attending face to face IETF meetings
> with some regularity, I strongly believe that IETF moving to a model
> that doesn't require so many people to travel to get the work done
> is a good thing and ought to be a longterm objective.

   Hasn't it _been_ one?

   Those of us who can't arrange the time and/or money are simply
asking, "If not now, when?"

--
John Leslie <[e-mail]>