Re: Remote participation fees [Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY]

[Dave Cridland <[e-mail]>]

On 15 February 2015 at 00:16, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
>
> On 14/02/15 22:47, Mary Barnes wrote:
> > I do recognize that
> > quality isn't quite there yet, but it's pretty darn good and maybe good
> > enough.
>
> My experience of being remote was that it was pretty good,
> but for a lot of the WGs where I listened in, I was able to
> recognise voices of folks I know, and was also able to use
> jabber to ask various people there about the goings-on. I
> don't think that'd be that common for remote participants,
> and without it, the experience would have been much worse I
> think. (But it'd be interesting to hear otherwise if that's
> the case.)
>
>
I attended IETF 63 in Paris, and IETF 68 in Prague. I've attended two
interim meetings (one in London for Lemonade, one in Brussels for XMPP). I
popped my head through the door of London for literally 15 minutes or so at
the end of one evening.

I recognise most voices in the working groups I frequent, including those
I've never met; I've only ever used the audio feeds and XMPP chatrooms.
This includes both the WGs I'm active in, and most of those that I've
looked in on over the years.

I find it somewhat bemusing that the reverse is not true. Not only do
people obviously not know my voice or face, but they sometimes don't know
my name either; even when we've worked in the same working group and had
lengthy conversations on mailing lists.


> And while remote listening (and the occasional prod via
> jabber) was fairly workable for me, as others have noted
> I don't think we're anywhere near solving the problem of
> workable remote input in general.
>
>
Yeah, this. The number of times I've wanted to "say" something only to find
it's said late, and quite often hasn't translated from text.

Seriously, I've often wished that Cyrus Daboo (who sounds very like me;
I've never met him) would read my questions and comments out; I'm sure
that'd work better,


> I fully agree that we ought be working more on all of this
> though.
>
> S.
>
>