Re: WG meeting structure

["Pete Resnick" <[e-mail]>]

Replying to Joel, Stephen, and Fred in one message to reduce traffic:

On 14 May 2019, at 18:36, Joel M. Halpern wrote:

> Given the other disucssions about the importance of remote 
> participation, it would seem we would either need a lot of 
> microphones, or very different (and I suspect expensive) microphone 
> technology so that the folks at those tables could simultaneously
> 1) engage in effective conversation
> 2) be heard remotely

I think for 2 dozen people, 3 or 4 mics to be passed around the table 
should be fine, plus the two fixed floor mics. And so long as the 
screen/camera is up front, I don't think engagement changes much from 
the current state for remote folks.

On 14 May 2019, at 18:49, Stephen Farrell wrote:

> Wasn't exactly this done for QUIC or maybe HTTPBIS a few times
> a couple of years ago? (With spill over to other WGs in the
> relevant room on that day.) I forget if that was considered
> a success or not.

Yes, I should have given proper credit for that too: Mark N and I have 
chatted about that experience, which he reported as quite positive.

On 14 May 2019, at 18:53, Fred Baker wrote:

> Am I willing? Yes. Do I think it's a wonderful idea? I don't. Why? 
> Because I already have little trouble getting people to come to the 
> microphone when they care about something, and I already instruct 
> speakers to leave at least half of their slot for discussion.

I find this one interesting: I always find that interacting in the U 
shape is much easier than from a floor mic, depending on the size of the 
room, especially when multiple people are in on the discussion. If you 
have someone leading the discussion (or presenting), you can always put 
them at the top-center of the U for that part of the discussion. But 
either way, I'm not clear how having the people up at the table would 
make it harder to get them to participate than getting them to walk up 
to the mic in a lecture-style room.

> The one thing I would request is that breakout rooms not have large
> visual blockages in them that prevent people from coming to the 
> microphone,
> or interacting with the speaker.

Do you think this somehow makes that worse?

> I would suggest that chairs be given the option of choosing such a 
> room layout, and that at least one room be configured as you suggest 
> for those chairs that request it.

Absolutely. But we do need to get enough folks to say they'd be willing 
(or want) to try in order to get the secretariat to set it up.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick http://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best