Re: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Face-to-Face and Virtual Interim Meetings

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dan,

I understand your arguments: cost and the ease of having a 
meetecho/webex these days.
However, I've been in at least one interim meeting focused on white 
board sessions.
And, even with all the good will, white board sessions and remote 
participations, just don't work together.

I favor a should in your initial sentence:
     "Remote participation (via Meetecho or similar) must be provided"

Regards, Benoit
> Hi Jari,
>
> I oscillated between 'should' and 'must' myself. The principal reason I ended with a 'must' was that agreeing on exceptions can be perceived as excluding people from the process. In the real world some of us live justifying funds for 1-2 days interim of one WG is more difficult than getting a full IETF week approved. Remote participation is the only option. The 'must' requirement also seems pretty ubiquitous nowadays - it translates into 'the host of a f2f interim must ensure that a microphone and external phone connection exists in the room and the chairs must activate Meetecho or Webex'.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 10:02 PM
>> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Face-to-Face and
>> Virtual Interim Meetings
>>
>> Dan,
>>
>>> I suggest to add the following bullet to the face-to-face interim guidelines:
>>>
>>> - Remote participation (via Meetecho or similar) must be provided
>> I think that's a good addition, although I'd probably use the keyword 'should'
>> to leave some wiggle room for special situations. We don't need to specify
>> everything that the working groups do as rules.
>> If the WG has reasonable leadership, they will do the right thing.
>>
>> Jari
> .
>