Re: Remote participation fees

Abdussalam Baryun <> Thu, 26 February 2015 05:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 797BE1A006F for <>; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 21:59:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ue4iZp7NSwoJ for <>; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 21:59:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFAD31A1A55 for <>; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 21:59:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id i13so6327745qae.10 for <>; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 21:59:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=VMUDLpva0/x33PMYxdnFshrE8t0z3xZUw7s0r074oFw=; b=fFfENKKgRPzQFiJAE+xTkhYlbvmqE0opsTWfvcftpvBqFy1MCXUSoiGo/xIlnkyA7B V1uTGL8/QCGomlNc0RHmvdo2ZURtUOIdtqVEiuTJb0SWRN+kKwG4FKahy7DWikVYkZCw mF/S49qVWEBJTKVt+6UaHKcNa6Vd7aoR55TnJb5i6RniKhe5iU+boDyrE/j5b1YqQF6W 2tUqw/66fhmqEItUNlKc5XoX6FH98BehFjWO6joKzhVhs5VXTVaH8ae/fq3p3ISAIS3y rW2cCThnpkFcA69sJ/uL6M6xIIGSVD/BXun4h/PA5/hfDjLlHcbxD/JGEtcaxQmAAWOz i2jQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id 207mr15391788qhu.62.1424930342928; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 21:59:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 21:59:02 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <20150214225128.GS14296@verdi> <> <>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 21:59:02 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Remote participation fees
From: Abdussalam Baryun <>
To: Christer Holmberg <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, John Leslie <>
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: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 05:59:05 -0000

Usually, ietf-draft authors that pay in ietf-meetings will get the
best outcome from their efforts and get more interests from the world.
Remote participants need to be encouraged/increased so making it free
is an excellent ietf-strategy currently. IMHO, the utilization&fee
issue is not in the side of remote participants but is in the side of
the f2f participants, because it is still not totally-managed by
session/meeting chairs within IETF meetings (which may be a very good
approach for flexibility). IETF meetings are productive and efficient
but could we make more effort to increase that? we may think to add
fees on draft-authors that need more than 10 minutes to present

Is it possible to chair a session and you get 20 participants lined up
while that draft presentation was scheduled for 15 minutes. Or  may I
"line up" for a long time with no much expectation of how long it will
take while the queue has 3 only. Could we have in IETF a determination
of best practice maximum input time per f2f participant per draft.

 I suggest that IETF management guide session chairs to announce
maximum input duration time per draft per meeting-participant, so we
can get the highest efficiency per session/WG-meeting.


On 2/15/15, Christer Holmberg <> wrote:
> Hi,
> It can't be that difficult to make a tool that everyone (including those
> participating f2f) use to "line up" behind the microphone.
> Many virtual meeting tools already provide a raise-your-hand feature.
> Regards,
> Christer
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf [] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
> Sent: 15 February 2015 04:11
> To: John Leslie
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: Remote participation fees
> On Feb 14, 2015, at 5:51 PM, John Leslie <> wrote:
>>   Is there anybody besides the Meetecho folks whose task it is to
>> "make it work"? Is there anybody _including_ the Meetecho folks who
>> has the ability to arrange similar priority at the mike to that of
>> on-site participants?
> A tremendous amount of work goes on behind the scenes to make this work, not
> just the meetecho folks.   I remember reporting a problem in a meeting and
> having Alexa show up five minutes later checking to see if it was fixed, and
> I know that other folks from AMS and from the NOC work hard on this.