On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Stephen Farrell
<stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie>
wrote:
On 14/02/15 18:21, Mary Barnes wrote:
And, actually this is already happening with Meetecho.
I think we ought forget about charging for remote attendance until
remote attendance is much better. Remotely attending IETF-91 via
meetecho was a good bit better than I expected but is nowhere near
the point where we could charge. Let's make it work first, and then
see how that affects attendance and then figure out charging models
and not try do that backwards by starting to discuss charging models
for something that doesn't yet exist.
S.
[MB] As I said in an earlier thread, I'm personally very conflicted as to
whether this should be
considered at all. I'm not at all suggesting that we do this now - I'm
just suggesting that improving
the experience and changing how we work a tad might be possible - that's
all. Others seem to think that
we would negatively impact, the IETF culture, which is primarily what I
disagree with. . I do recognize that
quality isn't quite there yet, but it's pretty darn good and maybe good
enough. The bigger issue might well end
up being whether remote participants have a high enough quality Internet
connection for this to work
well for enough people. I certainly do and most folks in large
metropolitan areas do. The good news
is that ISOC has an initiative to try to improve the situation:
http://www.internetsociety.org/access
[/MB]