Re: Remote participation fees

John Leslie <john@jlc.net> Sat, 14 February 2015 23:19 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jlc.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2AB21A0369 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 15:19:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Sr9t2oq0qpf3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 15:19:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28A841A0364 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 15:19:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (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 <john@jlc.net>
To: Mary Barnes <mary.h.barnes@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Remote participation fees
Message-ID: <20150214231932.GU14296@verdi>
References: <CABmDk8m1KuSs8os9V7fcYOJC2O4yMb6dRFer+nEPBTTSHtey9Q@mail.gmail.com> <31891031-4628-49CD-B66C-38A3BD787B70@trammell.ch> <54DE7F09.8030500@gmail.com> <C5FC0DB6-82F8-4C38-ABFD-D5D9A6E65933@isoc.org.ec> <54DE90C6.6030609@gmail.com> <E39AF4E0-58AB-4249-8A37-3D1CD2D5A691@gmail.com> <54DE9844.1010807@gmail.com> <61FBB27B-4EF3-40A0-8981-00EB89698295@isoc.org.ec> <B90F5E29-06C5-41D1-9F31-1BE42382995F@gmail.com> <CABmDk8=YPZ1W2tTOqP23U2PFVLoDh-3+wwmcA8mpta-Y05op2A@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABmDk8=YPZ1W2tTOqP23U2PFVLoDh-3+wwmcA8mpta-Y05op2A@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/35UpBPDQNuqdzh6xVSiQxd5iaks>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 23:19:48 -0000

Mary Barnes <mary.h.barnes@gmail.com> 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 <john@jlc.net>