Hi Göran,
Thanks for the additional context. Some further thoughts in-line.
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 12:53 PM, G
öran Eriksson AP <goran(_dot_)ap(_dot_)eriksson(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com> wrote:
Hi Ted,
I’ll try my best to describe the comments made. I will also separately
outline personal reflections on this matter:
1. Comments during the meeting.
As the MarNEW workshop was presented, there was a question about the
possibility to participate remotely. One answer give was that to
participate, one had to submit a paper and the organisers had not
considered remote participation for those who had gotten papers accepted.
A response to this was a question how those who had not submitted a paper
could follow since the subject as well as the opinions and statements of
participants, i.e the discussion itself, is of interest for many.
The response was that a transcript will be made public after the meeting.
So, just to be clear, we are focused in this discussion on the second
question--how to follow what was said, rather than remote participation.
2. Personal reflections
What data will be missing of course depends on how accurate and detailed
the transcript will be. You probably know the plans for the MArNEW
transcript better than I, :-).
Actually, I'm not on the program committee for this one, but for SEMI, you
can see the output here:
https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2015/02/26-01-2015_minutes.txt
and
https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2015/02/27-01-2015_minutes.txt.
It tells you who said what and in reference to which topic, though you need
some ability to cross-reference
with the presentations and the attendee list. It is pretty close to a
blow-by-blow, though there is some compression going on.
One could assume that especially relevant in this case are opinions of
different stakeholders.
Personally, I can understand the difficulty in enabling live TV broadcast
of such an event as well as near impossibility to cover fully the
discussions in smaller teams, breaks and similar that often takes place in
this type of tet-a-tet’s.
The level of difficulty is pretty variable, depending on the format of an
event. For a series of presentations, it may be relatively easy, since you
are asking a single presenter to wear a mic and have a single camera
angle. For a robust discussion, it is much, much more difficult. In the
worst cases, the discussion and exchange gets sufficiently subordinated to
the mechanics that things don't move as they could (chiefly by making the
discussion pause while the camera and mic catch up).
(As an aside, I have never seen a workshop inside or outside of the IETF
where the breaks were covered by mics and/or cameras. I'm not sure whether
that it is because of its difficulty or the social norm that these times
are for informal social interactions).
However, I think it is of value for both IETF and GSMA to go that extra
mile in this case to ensure “data” is open.
It is quite likely that that
is the intent and plan of both IAB and GSMA but it is not evident from
the information available so far, which is why I felt a need to put the
question(s).
Thanks again for your careful consideration of this. While I don't speak
for the IAB, I believe the IAB and GSMA are striving to find the best
balance between enabling the discussion at the workshop and making sure
that the workshop and its results are appropriately public. Your input on
that will certainly be heard.
regards,
Ted Hardie
(as an individual, not for the IAB)
Best Regards
Göran
regards,
Ted Hardie