Great thoughts, John.
I think we have to think very carefully about Hub capabilities. Maybe a
scale? For example: A hub could describe itself:
1. This hub is my living room. Lunch is potluck. (Beware of my cats!)
2. This is a room at a college or university with fairly good connectivity
3. This is room at a large company or major university with excellent
connectivity
4. We have full screen telepresence
Just brainstorming ...
Thanks,
Nalini ElkinsInside Products, Inc.www.insidethestack.com(831) 659-8360
From: John C Klensin <john-i...@jck.com>
To: nalini.elk...@insidethestack.com
Cc: vmeet@ietf.org; Ray Pelletier <rpellet...@isoc.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2015 9:23 AM
Subject: Quick post-meeting thoughts
Hi.
A few comments made in the last few minutes of the meeting
illustrates another part of what I was trying to get at when I
suggested it was important to be clear about objectives and
expectations.
A "try it, some will work and some won't" approach is
appropriate, indeed optimal, for many notions of what a remote
hub is about. However, if there is a WG for which I (or some
other remote participant) is critical (e.g., a WG Chair or
co-chair, document-editor, or key technical contributor, then
the situation is much more like that of a virtual meeting with
some participants present: if the technology and arrangements
don't work, then the whole meeting, is at risk of failure. The
recent discussion on the IETF list about the Meetecho issues
during the plenary is probably worth looking at as an
illustration. For that type of situation, very much unlike some
people gathering together to observe a WG session together and
discuss it (and various other scenarios) "too bad, it didn't
work, we will try again another time" is just not acceptable.
Using myself as an example, I'd far prefer to be participating
with others at a hub arrangement to sitting in my home office if
the logistics were reasonable. However, if the setup for the
hub were "best efforts, we hope it will work out but maybe it
won't" and I was critical to the relevant WG, I'd need to stay
home just to minimize the number of variables. On the other
hand, if there was a handy hub and a WG is was interested in but
not heavily involved with, I'd probably drop in on the hub if
that were feasible, just as I'd drop in on the WG session if I
were physically at IETF and didn't have conflicts.
Ray, who is probably the key person who would get screamed at if
a virtual interim meeting ended up not being accessible to some
key participants, may be able to add more perspective to this.
>From my point of view, any of a large collection of models
("templates"?) would be reasonable, helpful, and probably worth
experimenting with. However, there are circumstances in with
failures are more acceptable than others and it seems to me that
it is really important to know the differences and be clear
about them.
Good discussion. Thanks for including me.
john
p.s. If the person from China who spoke late in the session (I
wasn't able to get a name) would drop me a note offlist, I may
have a suggestion or two that might be useful.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html.
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
