Yoav Nir <ynir(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 11 Apr 2016, at 1:45 PM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk(_at_)gsp(_dot_)org> wrote:
Don't have physical meetings. Then this entire problem space simply
vanishes...
... to be replaced by other "unsolvable" problems: but ones where progress
might be easier...
YES, it's replaced by a different problem space, which roughly works out
to "how can everything be done virtually?"
++
but given that this is the *Internet* engineering task force I have no
doubt that the collective expertise is more than capable of dealing
with that.
I don't 100% share that enthusiam; but I do believe we'd see visible
progress within a year or two.
I don't believe that this technology exists.
That makes three of us agreeing!
People have been singing the praise of Meetecho in IETF 95, and yet
remote participation is nothing like being in the room.
True... I can be attending to my email, or even pouring through a
deskful of background papers, and nobody will chide me for not listening!
And the "virtual interim" meetings are nothing like physical meetings...
Less true... I have participated in some very effective virtual meetings.
It's a matter of how the Chair runs things. (And that _is_ variable!)
Particularly if all the discussion, effort, and expense going into the
logistics of physical meetings is redirected into virtual ones instead.
Yeah, perhaps, some day when we're all wearing virtual reality headsets
and our avatars are hanging out in a virtual venue, and we all have
sufficient equipment and bandwidth to handle all that.
It really has nothing to do with such gimmicks!
For IETF-95 I used a $500 large-screen for the first time. It certainly
didn't give me $500 of benefit over the multiple 20-inch screens I usually
use, but large-screens don't cost $500 anymore. ;^)
I wouldn't use a V-R headset if it were a gift. Avatars would get in
the way of expressing differing attitudes. The whole field of how to show
non-local participants needs work!
We're not there yet.
We're not even agreed where "there" should be.
I really can't take any of the platitudes about "inclusion" seriously
until that happens -- because as long as the IETF persists with physical
meetings, most people *will* be excluded due to cost, distance, time,
legal climate, personal safety, etc.
Guilty as charged.
The IETF is, even if accidentally, selecting for the elite few who are
fortunate enough to be [able to] attend.
Guilty as charged, again.
I've had quite a number of high-school students working here who could
have become valuable participants at IETF. Exactly _one_ of them agreed to
attend an IETF week; and that one would never consent to attend another.
We are selecting mostly those whose employers send them in hopes of getting
a return-on-investment.
I long for the days when we attracted lots of graduate students!
Virtual meetings with the technology we have today makes it very hard for
people with mediocre English to follow the discussion.
It's hard for them in-person on-site, too. Why aren't we discussing
tools to help them?
The "I don't quite follow what you're saying" look does not translate
well to the kind of video we can use today.
False! It merely doesn't translate to the kind of video we _do_ use
today.
That extends even to people with relatively good English (for non-native
speakers) like me.
So, to fall back to my standard question: "What are you going to do
about it?"
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>