Alessandro Vesely <vesely(_at_)tana(_dot_)it> wrote:
I'm happy that Meetecho is gradually improving our remote
participation experience. However, as a matter of fact, that is
still not quite the same thing as in person participation.
Well said! (I'll get back to this...)
Question: Consider a WG which is really in need of a face to face
meeting. A very important participant, such as the editor of the main
WG document, however, would only participate remotely, because he is
an independent consultant and lacks specific funds.
This is becoming more common.
(Of course, Document Editor isn't a good example of the problem --
that role can _better_ be done without the distractions of an IETF
week.)
But there are many interactions which _do_ work much better in
person. Fresh in mind is the mostly-failed interaction started by
Barry Leiba in apps-discuss(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org over the interpretation of
RFC 3864:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg07374.html
I remain amazed how much failure-to-communicate happened in that
thread! I think we reached the right outcome; but I'm still not sure
what John Klensin was trying to say. In-person, such exchanges tend
to resolve in three minutes, not three days...
The good news is that we _have_ learned how to resolve these things
via email -- and many of us remain committed to doing so.
The bad news is that there are _so_ many issues floating around
that a lot of them die out before they can be resolved via email.
It's hard to blame Working Group Chairs that aim to resolve issues
during IETF weeks -- but the result is rather slow progress and the
effective exclusion of some of the folks best able to find actual
common ground (the Document Editors' job).
Can the WG --in such case-- set up some arrangements, e.g. take a
collection up from the other participants, or anything to a similar
effect? Are there provisions or limitations?
There really aren't any such provisions -- or for that matter
limitations -- for such actions. IMHO, such actions aren't likely
to succeed. Participation in an IETF week tends to be $5,000 cold
cash in addition to the value of one's time (which not all of us
_can_ afford to donate).
IMHO, participation of individuals and small businesses is not less
important than that of newcomers from emerging and developing economies.
I agree (of course!) that experienced folks generally have more
to offer than newcomers. I believe that -- in principle -- most
participants would agree.
Returning to the first item:
I'm happy that Meetecho is gradually improving our remote
participation experience. However, as a matter of fact, that is
still not quite the same thing as in person participation.
The whole Internet is not-quite-the-same-thing as the world before
Internet!
"Quite-the-same-thing" is definitely the wrong metric here:
Internet enables many things which we couldn't do Before-Internet.
Instead of trying to squeeze these things onto the laptop we carry
to IETF week, why not learn to squeeze the interactions onto the
Internet and interact from our offices where we have _all_ of our
tools available?
Granted, employers are generally looking for a more immediate
payback when sponsoring folks to IETF weeks -- not something
where the goal isn't even visible yet. We already have efforts
in this direction in RTCWEB and CLUE WGs; but the goals remain
indistinct to most IETF participants.
And, of course, we have Paul Hoffman's work (which you can
follow on the VMEET list) for improving remote participation.
I am acutely embarrassed that I won't even be able to attend
Atlanta in person. But I find that my overall IETF-week experiences
are in some ways more productive "participating" remotely from my
office. Jabber can be an effective interaction tool; I can keep
multiple screens active; I'm not limited to cookies to keep my
energy level up; et cetera.
I suggest active participation in VMEET:
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
for all the experienced folks who find themselves unable to attend
IETF weeks in person.
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>