Re: Remote participation fees

John Leslie <> Sat, 14 February 2015 23:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2AB21A0369 for <>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 15:19:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Sr9t2oq0qpf3 for <>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 15:19:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28A841A0364 for <>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 15:19:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 104) id 3358EC94BD; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:19:32 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:19:32 -0500
From: John Leslie <>
To: Mary Barnes <>
Subject: Re: Remote participation fees
Message-ID: <20150214231932.GU14296@verdi>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 23:19:48 -0000

Mary Barnes <> 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]


> [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

> 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.


> ... 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 <>