Re: Concerns about Singapore

Rich Kulawiec <> Tue, 12 April 2016 11:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 984DC12EACA for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 04:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 18ejyKbt3otJ for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 04:03:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D45D12EB2B for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 04:03:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.15.1/8.14.9) with SMTP id u3CB2xGS015168 for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:03:00 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:02:59 -0400
From: Rich Kulawiec <>
To: ietf <>
Subject: Re: Concerns about Singapore
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 11:03:03 -0000

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 07:54:25PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> If we were to attempt such a thing, how do you think it would work?

Let me preface this by saying that I think attempts to completely
mimic the current in-person meeting experience as it exists probably
won't work.  They might: but they probably won't.  But then again,
I don't think that's entirely necessary: processes and procedures
change (compare boarding a steamship in 1930 with an aircraft in 2005)
and evolve in order to work with technology.

So if I were to envision this, things I'd want to experiment with
would include:

- passive view-only, listen-only read-only access to anyone, anonymously.
(That is: no registration required.)

- levels of read-write access, perhaps (roughly speaking) distinguished
as text, audio, and video.  Participants could select based on their
available bandwidth and on the level they're comfortable with.  I think
it's reasonable to require registration for write access.

- a channel for presentation content only. Again, this is an option for
those with limited bandwidth or limited time.

- ability to delay/time-shift.

- perhaps restructuring long sessions into smaller time slots.  If people
have all travelled to the same place, then it makes sense to get a lot
done in a short time, and so a four hour session (for example) makes
sense.  But if people are in disparate locations, then maybe four one-hour
sessions make more sense.  This also better accomodate people who have
trouble carving out four hours in the middle of their day.  Or night.

- integrated storage of sessions, so that someone can watch, listen,
read, and absorb the entire experience.  Useful for someone half a
planet away who won't be (or can't be) awake for real-time participation.

- translations and/or text captioning and/or some kind of assistance
for non-native speakers and the hearing impaired.

- emphasis on the inclusion of participants who can't make it to meetings
today, either because of time, money, politics, distance, family, job, etc.

Over and above all of this: a willingness to experiment and to have
some of those expirements fail -- which they will.