Mary Barnes <mary(_dot_)h(_dot_)barnes(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
[MB] True. But, perhaps considering other sorts of conference facilities
with nearby hotels could be an option. In particular, if we really do
improve remote participation to the point that we reduce the number of
onsite participants, the size requirement for the conference facilities
goes down. [/MB]
+1
[MB] ... The ability to participate in a meeting remotely with a
very rich multimedia experience is something that we certainly ought
to be able to do with the protocols we're developing.
If we're not making progress, there's something wrong with the WG
charters.
I have worked extensively in an environment where these technologies
are essential to business (as I imagine many of us having) and you
no longer need an expensive dedicated video unit to have a high
quality experience. We are developing these technologies in IETF
in the RTCWEB and CLUE WG. If we can't leverage those protocols for
our own meetings, then we've not done something right in the IETF.
+1
... I think the biggest problem that high quality remote participation
will introduce is that companies will become even more reluctant to
send people to the face to face meetings.
Many companies are _already_ reluctant...
I do still see value in people attending face to face IETF meetings
with some regularity, I strongly believe that IETF moving to a model
that doesn't require so many people to travel to get the work done
is a good thing and ought to be a longterm objective.
Hasn't it _been_ one?
Those of us who can't arrange the time and/or money are simply
asking, "If not now, when?"
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>