Re: mic lines not working as well as they used to...

[Kyle Rose <[e-mail]>]

There is no way I would pay the on-site fee without all the benefits of
being in-person. (Hell, I've even considered staying on-site but paying the
remote fee, and just avoiding the meeting rooms because the actual value
isn't in sitting in the same conference rooms with other attendees during
working group sessions.)

Kyle

On Wed, Nov 23, 2022, 5:53 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Given the significant effort to normalize the on-site vs remote
> participation experience, perhaps the IETF should have the same (or very
> nearly the same) registration fee for both types of participation.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Acee
>
>
>
> *From: *WGChairs <[e-mail]> on behalf of Toerless Eckert
> <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 5:32 PM
> *To: *Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *Working Group Chairs <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: mic lines not working as well as they used to...
>
> This time around i had a case where i was patiently waiting on the
> microphone
> line in a WG room for probably 10 minutes and then was simply asked by the
> remote
> chair to step away because i had forgotten to put myself into the virtual
> queue.
>
> In that chairs defense, i do not know if he could see the physical
> microphone line
> in the room or not, but the delegate in the room also just did not say
> anthing,
> so i could not participate in the discussion. I have seen this situation
> being
> handled a lot more friendly in other WGs though. So there is definitely a
> lot of freedom today already for WG chairs to either be sticklers to the
> rules
> or to foster a collegial discussion atmosphere. My compromise as a WG chair
> is to allow each person on the local microphone ONCE in a meeting to have
> missed
> getting into the virtual line for example.
>
> With that and similar experiences, i'd say its certainly an issue we
> struggle with.
>
> I am very much a fan of the virtual queue given how i too never
> understand peoples names when being mumbled at the microphone. Alas i do
> not
> find the meetecho lite to be particularily easy to use tool on the mobile
> phone.
>
> An actual app might help to avoid having to click through ietf web pages
> and typing
> in login information repeatedly to use meetecho lite. At least that's what
> troubles
> me with the phone option currently.
>
> An nfc reader attached to the microphone in the room line would even be
> better.
> You just pass by with whatever registered NFC you have, then you see your
> name
> pop up on the room screen and e voila. Could have the NFC on your badge
> holder. Good reason to re-use badge-holders across IETFs and avoid the
> waste.
>
> Cheers
>     Toerless
>
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 03:02:27PM +0000, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> >
> > Hiya,
> >
> > I think we're making a bit of a mistake in requiring people
> > who are in the room at meetings to join the meetecho queue
> > before they join the physical mic line. It's not an end of
> > the world thing, but I think it is a bit damaging.
> >
> > The results of what we've done this year seem to me to be
> > that:
> >
> > - fewer people join mic lines overall
> > - there's almost no real discussion of topics raised
> >   at the mic as there used be
> >
> > I realise that being fair to remote participants needs to
> > be a hard requirement, but I think we've gone a bit too far
> > and ought back off some, e.g. to where we encourage but
> > don't require people (whether remote or in-person) to join
> > the meetecho queue. I think we ought also encourage more
> > discussion at the mic (for both remote and in-person folks)
> > and not be so fixated on the order in which people appeared
> > in the meetecho queue. That requires a bit more chairing
> > but that's why we're supposedly at the front of the room.
> >
> > But, maybe others like the current rigid setup or haven't
> > found the lack of mic-line discussion a problem?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > S.
>