I agree with Hadriel (probably because we attend a lot of the same WGs)
that remote participants are not actively ignored.
The problem is that, with the time lag, and the need to type in your
comments in quickly, then relay them through the jabber scribe
A- the discussion has often moved on before your comment gets to the mic
B - your comment is necessarily short and, hopefully, to the point. But
if the audience doesn't "get" the point and misinterprets your comment,
you really don't get an opportunity to clarify.
C- you can't participate in a back and forth "conversation"
Of the remedies listed, only
audio input - the ability for remote participants to speak using
their own voice, when it's their turn at the 'mic'.
addresses that.
(When I drag myself out of bed at 2:30 AM for a remote meeting, even if I
have changed into clothes, I don't think I want
video input, where remote participants can be seen
as well as heard. )
Janet
ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org wrote on 08/16/2013 08:07:56 AM:
From: Hadriel Kaplan <hadriel(_dot_)kaplan(_at_)oracle(_dot_)com>
To: John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Date: 08/16/2013 08:08 AM
Subject: Re: Radical Solution for remote participants
Sent by: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
On Aug 13, 2013, at 6:24 AM, John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net> wrote:
There are a certain number of Working Groups where it's standard
operating practice to ignore any single voice who doesn't attend an
IETF week to defend his/her postings.
I don't see that happening in the WGs I attend - when remote
participants post to jabber, the jabber scribes get mic time. I
think what you mean isn't really that physical participants "ignore"
remote ones, but more that remote participants don't have as much
impact/weight with their input/arguments than physical participants
do. Is that what you mean?
I don't always understand what Doug is asking for; but I suspect
he is proposing to define a remote-participation where you get full
opportunity to defend your ideas. This simply doesn't happen today.
Then fix that problem.
Which solution addresses that problem:
1) Make remote participants pay money.
2) Add a separate mic line.
3) Add remote controls for A/V equipment.
4) Add XMPP controls for mic-line and humming.
5) None of the above.
ISTM it's (5). Working Groups don't ignore remote participant
voices because they don't pay money. They don't ignore them because
they don't have a separate mic. They don't ignore them because they
don't have A/V control. They don't ignore them because they don't
have XMPP controls.
WG physical participants "ignore" remote ones because they're not
physically present. We're human beings. Human beings have a
subconscious connection/empathy with other human beings based on our
senses, that does not exist when we only read their words or only
hear them speaking... especially when it's hear them by-proxy as the
current jabber model uses. This isn't news to anyone - it's why
people travel to meet other people, and why the telepresence market
exists.
The next step up from our current jabber-scribe model is to have
audio input - the ability for remote participants to speak using
their own voice, when it's their turn at the 'mic'. The next step
up after that is video input, where remote participants can be seen
as well as heard. Both of those are technically achievable, and
possibly even practical to implement - though that's something the
folks who run and manage the meetings would have to decide, since
they'd know a lot more than us about that.
-hadriel