Re: Oh look! [Re: Remote participants, newcomers, and tutorials]

At 15:10 26-07-2013, John C Klensin wrote:
> However, the IETF has been having a lot of discussions about
> newcomers, diversity, and attracting new folks to participate
> and get work done.  I think those populations will be better
> served if it is possible for people a lot less experienced than
> the two of us can participate actively and constructively
> without attending every meeting.  I also think that, especially
> for many people from developing countries, universities, small
> companies, and far-away places, we will be far more successful
> in recruiting if we can encourage remote participation as a
> starting point with the expectation of getting people physically
> to meetings only after the value to them and their organizations
> of doing so has been demonstrated.  I'd personally even favor
> making remote participation at a could of meeting be a
> prerequisite for most applications for ISOC's IETF Fellows
> program.
Discussions that do not translation into actions are, well, 
discussions.  What is the easiest to enable the person from the 
university participate in the IETF meeting; what is the easiest way 
to enable the person from the small company to participate in the 
IETF meeting?  It is:
  (a) an audio stream

  (b) a jabber service

  (c) a jabber scribe

(a) and (b) are already available.  (c) is doable.  Will there be any 
results from that?  No.  Why should the IETF do that then?  Because 
it is simple, it is cheap, and if it works, who knows, there may be results.
> But the above picture isn't going to happen unless we are
> serious and treat that seriousness as an integral part of our
> strategies about newcomers and diversity.  Seriousness to me
> says that we get more careful about how experienced one has to
> be to find critical information, that we make sure remote
> participation works, and that we make any session that would be
> relevant to remote participants accessible to them (and with
> materials available as much as possible in advance and from
> easy-to-find places).  Seriousness implies that, if there are
> extra costs, we figure out how to cover them (or how to cut
> somewhere else).
Making information available is a first-step in getting things to 
work.  Please note that I do not see that as publishing some random 
web page.  I see that as making the information readily available to 
the target audience.
I'll quote part of a message from Benoit Claise:

  'Let me explain what the targeted audience is for those posters.

   It's not intended for the people who know about a specific BoF and plan on
   participating. It's intended for people who have not prepared for 
a specific
   BoF, but just come to listen to it, and in the end, go to mic. to provide
   some useful feedback: "pay attention to this!", "similar work was 
done ...",
   "don't forget that ...", "don't forget OPS" ;-)'

It is a down-to-earth explanation about how to get people interested 
in a specific BoF.
Two years ago (minus one day) Brian Carpenter objected to the fact 
that the regular
audio streaming is not available for the plenaries.  The link for the 
technical plenary audio stream is not available in the (tools) agenda.
> Or, if we are not serious, it would probably be to the benefit
> of the community for us to face that and stop wasting energy and
> resources on outreach efforts that are expensive in one or the
> other (or both).
It is a waste of energy and money to pursue outreach efforts if the 
IETF is not serious about how to lower the barriers for newcomers and 
its strategy about diversity.
Regards,
-sm