Re: WG meeting structure

Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Wed, 15 May 2019 07:08 UTC

Return-Path: <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D941712008C for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 May 2019 00:08:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 E5vo5A-IY9v6 for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 May 2019 00:08:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:42:150::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8C29120285 for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 May 2019 00:08:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Gs-MacBook-Pro.local (fgrpf.plus.com [212.159.18.54]) by pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C0DD41B000FD; Wed, 15 May 2019 08:08:20 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <5CDBBAE4.4030407@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 08:08:20 +0100
From: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Reply-To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
Organization: University of Aberdeen
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Kyle Rose <krose@krose.org>
CC: Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com>, WG Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>, Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>
Subject: Re: WG meeting structure
References: <61D81D11-1BA0-4123-80C9-C7A97297ED5C@episteme.net> <BF668B4C-6D67-4D7D-A31F-C24523F04EB2@gmail.com> <CAJU8_nUGXL6D1E6Sx-byC8FX66LZb=xe6rDf9_45bqd+0peXng@mail.gmail.com> <CAD62q9U1do+3K5g8KXYJpmuZ2mR2JFBOxt1Qi=bn2v-=QxGUxA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJU8_nUUJPU19msBJrBJ2WyxgBKOqBKMz-scDKG5C=-2eqPtRw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJU8_nUUJPU19msBJrBJ2WyxgBKOqBKMz-scDKG5C=-2eqPtRw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wgchairs/0vFiDWQ40PERx-1NdteEIpqjmgg>
X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working Group Chairs <wgchairs.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/wgchairs>, <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/wgchairs/>
List-Post: <mailto:wgchairs@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wgchairs>, <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 07:08:31 -0000

On 15/05/2019, 03:07, Kyle Rose wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 10:01 PM Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com 
> <mailto:aaron.falk@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         Technical issues aside (more mics?), WG chairs already have
>         pretty wide latitude to run the meetings in the way they feel
>         is most appropriate. This includes how to recognize speakers.
>         It seems some experiments are in order. FWIW, I attended the
>         QUIC session in Berlin (?) where this U shape was employed,
>         and I thought it worked quite well.
>
>
>      My recollection is that the experiments with the U-shaped table
>     were considered a success for the people who were there and a
>     failure for any remote participants because they had a difficult
>     time hearing and participating in the conversation.
>
>
> If true, this is definitely a problem, but it also feels like one that 
> can be solved with better equipment.
>
> A related consideration might be providing a virtual place at the 
> table for remote participants who are critical participants in a 
> particular discussion, which might mean augmenting meetecho with the 
> ability for chair-selected remotes to speak without the chair pressing 
> the big red button.
>
> Kyle
As I recall, this worked nicely for a smaller setting with a U-table and 
one or two rows seats where more people were included.

For me, it served very badly when the a U-table was setup and then there 
were banks of chairs postioned to observe it. A part of the issue was 
that it encouraged people at the table to have an Interim-style 
discussion - engagement was faster with each other. These people 
benefited from cues in body language, eye contact, etc.

Others became passive observers. Many people had their back to me and 
spoke to others without me knowing who they were or who they were 
talking to; I couldn't see who was speaking and it could be hard to see 
a presenter's face as they presented. I even saw a case where the person 
leading/chairing was seated with their back to many of the people in the 
room. To me it was like being a remote observer at an Interim.

I'm unsure how more technology would help here.

Gorry