From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Hector Santos
The IETF should be leading the charge for easy to use, multi-device
readiness cyberspacing virtual meeting places, including better
electronic groupware collaboration tools, etc. It is undoubtedly and
inevitably the "Achilles' Heel" for the IETF Meeting. So the IETF needs
to embrace it now, big time, before its too late. This includes getting
on board with membership models to subsidize the business and its
future. This shouldn't take away "Face to Face" communications - in
fact, it will increase it. Its much more doable with today's higher
universal bandwidth and the IETF needs to be prime examples of the
various technology it is helping put together and standardize. In fact,
the IETF can probably learn and help improve groupware communications
with new working groups focusing on groupware.
[WEG] as someone who normally attends meetings in person, and had no choice but
to participate remotely this time on account of injury, I agree that IETF needs
to be focused on ways to improve remote participation as a means to reduce the
barrier to participation that our current travel requirements represent.
However, this is not only a technology problem. Remote participants suffer from
a cultural problem that is merely being exacerbated by the technology's
limitations. It is by no means unique to the IETF, because I've experienced it
plenty of times while working for companies that have remote offices and
teleworkers, but we definitely need to acknowledge it and look for solutions to
it if we're going to be successful with remote participation. Remote
participants are figuratively (and often literally) invisible, and therefore
people forget about them, and they get relegated to second-class status as a
participant. Even if it's only subconsciously, the in-person participa!
nts don't see remote participants to be "as committed" to participation as
those who gave up a week, traveled, paid for hotel, meals, registration, etc.
and often the lack of a face to go with the name makes a tangible difference in
the interactions. The only reason that remote participation even sort of works
in the IETF is that there are enough people who have done it before and know
how much it can suck when it goes poorly that they make a conscious effort to
treat remote participants as an equal part of the meeting attendees such that
they enforce good mic etiquette, volunteer to be jabber scribes, ensure
presentations are posted, etc. even when the WG chairs fail to do so. While I
am very grateful for those folks, that's an unreliable mechanism, one that
failed on numerous occasions in several WGs I tried to participate in this past
week. I don't post this message to whine, but to note that if we're going to
get serious about remote participation, it's not all about sh!
iny new tools, but instead the mentality of those who still pa!
rticipate
in person. There are other less tangible issues that I'll address in another
message.
Wes George
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to
copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not
the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the
contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender
immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and
any printout.