Christian O'Flaherty <oflahe...@isoc.org> wrote: > > Before we start working on the documents I would try to decide what > do we need,
Hard to answer that before agreeing what we're trying to accomplish... > We're now discussing how can we adapt those experiences to make them > useful for a WG work. Hmm... I don't think there's a single answer to that question... > Do we need a more formal process when real work is done remotely? > (do we need new 'roles' for the hubs (like a virtual chair), I doubt such a title would help much. But there's definitely a role for folks who are experienced in WG meetings in-person. > should they be recognized/acknowledged/approved by the IETF) Sounds like more effort than it's worth... > How can we make it equivalent to be an individual remote participant > vs. part of a remote hub. We can't. > And how are they different to interim [video] calls? Different issue... > a way forward could be to update the current documents making it clear > it was an experiment to promote IETF participation and start a learning > process on doing something more formal. I recommend against trying "more-formal" before we settle what we're trying to accomplish. > Christian Myself, I'd like to make remote-hubs more practical for folks already familiar with on-site IETF weeks. I think that will help newcomers as well as "oldcomers". -- John Leslie <j...@jlc.net> _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html. https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
