John, Thank you for your comments. Please see my responses inline.
nalini.elk...@insidethestack.com <nalini.elk...@insidethestack.com> wrote: >> >> We have submitted the first of three drafts discussing Remote Hubs. >> Please provide comments on the VMEET list. >> >> Three types of remote hubs are defined. Each has its own characteristics. >> >> - Remote Participation Hubs >> - Remote Viewing Hubs >> - Enduring Local Meetups >> >> The first document defines a Remote Participation Hub (RPH). >> Other documents are coming to define the other types of hubs. >> A common structure of sections will be used as far as possible for all >> hub types. >> >> URL: >> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-elkins-ietf-remote-participation-hubs-00.txt > This reads as overly bureaucratic; and IMHO fails to describe a useful > concept. > IETF weeks have always been intended to attract participants to work > they are not already familiar with. I think that you will get an argument on that. For example, there are people who have told me that they believe the core reason for an IETF week is to allow work to progress on drafts currently underway in a WG. Others who believe thatthe core function of an IETF meeting is the hallway track. Suffice it to saythat there are multiple motivations for attending an IETF meeting. Please note there are other drafts coming. The "Remote Viewing Hub"may be more what you are thinking of as attracting participants to workthat they are not familiar with or performing outreach functions. The reason for all the "bureaucratic" rules is that I have had a number ofpeople comment to me about what will happen if we really have veryactive members in multiple remote hubs. For example, what will happen if there is a problem in queuing? What will happen if someone is preventedfrom coming to the microphone? In a single face-to-face IETF meeting, thisis likely to be noticed. Will there be a record of what decisions were madeand how? Like it or not, there are many rules that we abide by incurrent face-to-face IETF meetings. What happens if the "main" WG meeting is run at a remote location? What happens if we have 100 different remote locations where "real" activity was happening? This draft on Remote Participation Hubs is anattempt to play out just that scenario. BTW, I have heard it suggested bysome people - as in "Why doesn't everyone just come in remotely?" > But even if we were to abandon that, it would still be necessary to> provide > an opportunity for participants at a Remote Participation Hub> to also, at a > minimum, follow other sessions not managed by the folks > in charge of the Remote Participation Hub. They are welcome to do that the way they do that today. Or bysetting up a Remote Viewing Hub. > Without that ability, experienced IETF folks would have to decline > to be phsically present at a Remote Participation Hub. Certainly, this is an option for them. > Thus, I regard managing a Remote Participation Hub (in accordance with > this document) as pointless. See above. > I do understand that there exist companies that would be willing to > provide a room for their employees to "attend" a single session; but > this IMHO is outside the ethos of the IETF, and should not be allowed > to increase the burden on the folks who arrange and manage IETF weeks. > (There is no reason companies can't already do that without creating > the bureaucratic burden.) See above. Also, I am not sure where you see that a RPH is a single session. It is certainly not intentional. Might you point me to the statement sothat I can correct it? An RPH makes its own decisions about what sessionsit wishes to do. Some may do all; others only one. > A more useful definiton af "Remote Participation Hib" would be a> place where > experienced IETF participants may meet together to > "participate" in an IETF week without the current burdens of travel, > visas, etc., and invite potential IETF participants to get a taste > of what an IETF week is like. I believe that this conflates two functions that I have tried very hardto separate. Participation implies much more than merely viewing. I believe that remote participation / viewing is the future. Having said that, we need to think very carefully about what can go wrong.In my company, we do some brainstorming before making strategic decisions. We ask ourselves, "Three years have gone by. Everythinghas gone wrong. What happened?" This way, we have a chance to think out and hopefully prevent problems before they arise. "Participation" must be separated from "Viewing". They implytwo very different levels of engagement. Thanks,Nalini
_______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html. https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
