Hi Jeff,
At 16:24 28-03-2012, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
I'm not sure what that means. Certainly remote participants should have
My guess is whether the opinion of the remote person will be given
any consideration.
just as much right to be heard as those who are present, and should be
given just as much weight in determining whether there is a consensus.
I for one consider it to be a key principle of the way the IETF carries
out its work that participating in the decision process does not require
physical attendance at meetings.
This comment is not directed at you.
The above is well-stated. There have been questions, sometimes from
people attending in person, about whether what is mentioned about is
just for show only. The questions go unheard. I take it that the
key principle can be explained by:
(a) There is an audio stream.
(b) There is a Jabber room.
(c) There is a Jabber scribe.
If any of these above is not available, would the session chair
cancel the meeting?
There have been some comments about scheduling yesterday. Would WG
chairs object if the Area Director cancels a session if the chair has
not publicly announced two weeks before the session the names of the
persons who will act as Jabber scribe and minute-taker? That might
free up a few slots.
FWIW, when I am physically present to chair a session, I normally try to
verify in advance that all of the mics are present and the mix isn't too
terrible.
+1.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html.
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
