Subject: In person vs remote participation to meetings

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 09:22:15 +0200

Dear IETF,

I'm happy that Meetecho is gradually improving our remote
participation experience.  However, as a matter of fact, that is still
not quite the same thing as in person participation.

Question:  Consider a WG which is really in need of a face to face
meeting.  A very important participant, such as the editor of the main
WG document, however, would only participate remotely, because he is
an independent consultant and lacks specific funds.  Can the WG --in
such case-- set up some arrangements, e.g. take a collection up from
the other participants, or anything to a similar effect?  Are there
provisions or limitations?

IMHO, participation of individuals and small businesses is not less
important than that of newcomers from emerging and developing economies.

TIA for any hint.
Ale

-------- Original Message --------
From: Steve Conte <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 13:34:02 -0700
To: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], Public Software Mailing List
<[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The Internet Society Fellowship to the IETF

Dear Mr. Vesely,

Thank you for your email regarding the ISOC Fellowship to the IETF
Programme.  This specific programme is designed to increase IETF
participation from emerging and developing economies.

The IETF has tools in which to participate remotely.  We encourage
those who are not able to physically attend an IETF meeting to utilize
those tools so as to remain active in their participation.

Sincerely,

Steve Conte

On Sep 5, 2012, at 4:38 AM, Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Dear ISOC,
> one of the points for qualifying for the programme is:
> 
>   Originate from and reside in a emerging or developing economy,
>   which traditionally have low rates of participation in the IETF.
>                          http://www.internetsociety.org/node/9476
> 
> I understand the intent and the limits of the programme, but I also
> notice that the IETF "works for those who pay its members."[1]  That
> fact may imply unwanted consequences, as far as free development (free
> as in "free speech") of open standards is concerned.  Do you address
> such topic on the ISOC web site?
> 
> For example, I know the case of a guy who is the editor of a standard
> specification within a IETF working group, but doesn't participate to
> IETF meetings because he has no funds for that.  He is an US citizen,
> hence does not qualify for the programme because of the point quoted
> above.  Indeed, that situation is quite frequent for small companies
> and individuals.  Wouldn't it be possible to widen the participation,
> for the sake of a democratic development of the Internet?
> 
> Thanks for your attention
> Sincerely
> AV
> 
> [1] JFC Morfin - Mon Sep 3 16:20:27 PDT 2012
> [PubSoft] OpenStand and "modern" paradigms
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/pubsoft/2012-September/002307.html

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 01:25:36 -0700

There are abundant examples of successful document editors and authors 
and the occasional area director working at a distance, some cases are 
harder than others.

The part that is hard to replace is, the opportunity for collegiality,  
for cross pollination, and many fine lunches  and dinners.

Working group participants are free to do what they want of course.

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 07:26:31 -0400

Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]> wrote:
> participation experience.  However, as a matter of fact, that is
> still not quite the same thing as in person participation.

   Well said! (I'll get back to this...)

> an independent consultant and lacks specific funds.

   This is becoming more common.

   (Of course, Document Editor isn't a good example of the problem --
that role can _better_ be done without the distractions of an IETF
week.)

   But there are many interactions which _do_ work much better in
person. Fresh in mind is the mostly-failed interaction started by
Barry Leiba in [email-masked] over the interpretation of
RFC 3864:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg07374.html

   I remain amazed how much failure-to-communicate happened in that
thread! I think we reached the right outcome; but I'm still not sure
what John Klensin was trying to say. In-person, such exchanges tend
to resolve in three minutes, not three days...

   The good news is that we _have_ learned how to resolve these things
via email -- and many of us remain committed to doing so.

   The bad news is that there are _so_ many issues floating around
that a lot of them die out before they can be resolved via email.

   It's hard to blame Working Group Chairs that aim to resolve issues
during IETF weeks -- but the result is rather slow progress and the
effective exclusion of some of the folks best able to find actual
common ground (the Document Editors' job).

> Can the WG --in such case-- set up some arrangements, e.g. take a
> collection up from the other participants, or anything to a similar
> effect? Are there provisions or limitations?

   There really aren't any such provisions -- or for that matter
limitations -- for such actions. IMHO, such actions aren't likely
to succeed. Participation in an IETF week tends to be $5,000 cold
cash in addition to the value of one's time (which not all of us
_can_ afford to donate).

> important than that of newcomers from emerging and developing economies.

   I agree (of course!) that experienced folks generally have more
to offer than newcomers. I believe that -- in principle -- most
participants would agree.

   Returning to the first item:
> participation experience.  However, as a matter of fact, that is
> still not quite the same thing as in person participation.

   The whole Internet is not-quite-the-same-thing as the world before
Internet!

   "Quite-the-same-thing" is definitely the wrong metric here:
Internet enables many things which we couldn't do Before-Internet.
Instead of trying to squeeze these things onto the laptop we carry
to IETF week, why not learn to squeeze the interactions onto the
Internet and interact from our offices where we have _all_ of our
tools available?

   Granted, employers are generally looking for a more immediate
payback when sponsoring folks to IETF weeks -- not something
where the goal isn't even visible yet. We already have efforts
in this direction in RTCWEB and CLUE WGs; but the goals remain
indistinct to most IETF participants.

   And, of course, we have Paul Hoffman's work (which you can
follow on the VMEET list) for improving remote participation.

   I am acutely embarrassed that I won't even be able to attend
Atlanta in person. But I find that my overall IETF-week experiences
are in some ways more productive "participating" remotely from my
office. Jabber can be an effective interaction tool; I can keep
multiple screens active; I'm not limited to cookies to keep my
energy level up; et cetera.

   I suggest active participation in VMEET:

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet

for all the experienced folks who find themselves unable to attend
IETF weeks in person.

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>

---

From: tglassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 07:02:57 -0700

On 9/28/2012 1:25 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> The part that is hard to replace is, the opportunity for 
> collegiality,  for cross pollination, and many fine lunches  and dinners.
>
The problem you cite here is actually a profound one. That work - the 
colligiality as you put it is lost in the process. None of the internal 
workings of those sessions unless they are formally recorded and made a 
permanent part of the standards record are really included today in the 
process. No cross correlation of any decisions made therein and in fact 
the problem is the IETF members seem to feel that the recording of how 
they get to where they get is not important. The problem is it is... 
very very important.

Todd
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5795 - Release Date: 09/27/12
>
>

-- 
//Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended recipient.