RE: Remote participation fees - do we need projectors?

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sun, 15 February 2015 12:23 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
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 802781A1B36 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 04:23:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.711
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.711 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 0kx-81kE9BLy for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 04:23:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 188081A1B30 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 04:23:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.35] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1YMyEa-000E2h-9m; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 07:23:36 -0500
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 07:23:31 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
Subject: RE: Remote participation fees - do we need projectors?
Message-ID: <BFA0370FFD98EB54C17971D7@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D6F1F1F@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D6F1F1F@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.35
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/OC-A5p8EhBCS9omCbatEoKevUWs>
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: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 12:23:42 -0000


--On Sunday, February 15, 2015 11:44 +0000 Christer Holmberg
<christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Do we really need projectors during the WG sessions?
> 
> Most participants have laptops/tablets where they could watch
> the slides.

Many participants are already too busy using their laptops to
monitor email and/or participate in Jabber (or equivalent)
side-conversations to also be able to monitor slides carefully.
Some of us have even thought that IETF effectiveness would be
improved if we banned laptops/tablets (or WiFi) from WG meetings
except for minute-takers, Jabber scribes, and others actively
interacting with remote participants.

There are other issues with projectors.  Some of us believe that
interaction took a step backwards in going from overhead
projectors to projected slides, but that is mostly a separate
problem and slides available only on personal devices would, if
anything, make it worse.
 
> ...and the presenter should keep his/her eyes on the audience,
> not the slides :)

Or on the tops of their heads or outside surfaces of laptops.
No audience feedback there.

> Not sure how big (if any) impact removing the projectors would
> have on the participation fee, but at least it would give a
> little more flexibility when it comes to finding suitable
> meeting rooms, as a projector is not required.

Because, with occasional exceptions, the IETF, and not the
hotels, provide the projectors, the consequences on meeting room
flexibility would, I think, be fairly low... unless a policy of
"except when you take an exercise break to walk to the
microphone, nothing going on in the meeting room other than
watching slides on your laptop, listening to a speaker whom you
can't see because you are staring at your laptop screen" further
reduced incentives for people to attend in person, thereby
cutting requirements on meeting room seating and power.

    john