Subject: Remote participants, registration, and mailing lists -- unintended consequences

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2016 11:29:30 -0400

Hi.

Not to complain but to add to whatever consideration occurs this
week about getting remote participants, more evidence that these
things need to be thought through carefully has turned up in the
last 24 hours.

* Apparently, remote participants who have registered are listed
on the "registered attendees" list without any differentiation
from face to face attendees.  That has resulted in my getting
several "when can we meet up" messages and some confused people.
Not a big deal, but an unnecessary waste of people's time.  More
important, if questions arose in the future about who was, or
was not, at a particular meeting, it could lead to even more
confusion and inconvenience (e.g., IIR, registration records
have sometimes been the subject of subpoenas).

* When we register, we apparently automatically signed up for
the [95all] and allowed to check the box that gets us on the
[95attendees] mailing lists.  That is fine -- I used to have to
try to monitor the archives of [NNall] to be sure I didn't miss,
e.g., important schedule changes (although most of those are
copied to IETF-announce and/or the IETF discussion list).
Announcements of specially-formatted agendas, workshop and lunch
seminar announcements, and the like are as useful to those of us
who are remote as those who are present (even if relevant
sessions are not supported remotely, we know what we are
missing).  But the N/S ratio is incredible -- I really don't
need the regular extended  discussions of plug converters,
nearby restaurants, SIM cards, laundry, nearby ATMs, and so on.

So, for the future, if we are really going to do this remote
participant registration thing, it would be nice if someone
would really take responsibility for thinking through all of the
implications and take action on them.

To all who are in Buenos Aires, best wishes for a successful
meeting.  And to all who are participating remotely, let's hope
that these difficulties with registration are the last problems
of the week and that everything else --the actual feeds and
connections-- will go really smoothly.

    john

---

From: Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 12:54:43 -0300

John,

> On Apr 3, 2016, at 12:29 PM, John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi.
> 
> from face to face attendees.

Thanks.  It has been noticed and will be changed.

>  That has resulted in my getting
> Not a big deal, but an unnecessary waste of people's time.

This is not clear to me.  This traffic wouldn’t be passed on the 
95All list.  It could be on the 95Attendees list.

>  More

When asked it’s usually the Blue Sheet, which now includes 
remote attendance "eBlue Sheets” at WG sessions.

> the [95all]

Yes, administrative matters related to the meeting, e.g. schedule
changes.

> and allowed to check the box that gets us on the
> [95attendees] mailing lists.

Correct, that is optional.  

>  That is fine -- I used to have to

We’ve tried to decrease this by having a wiki for each meeting so that
these matters can be addressed there, some by staff, but much of it
by locals and experienced travelers.  So far, the use of the wiki
has been disappointing.  

https://www.ietf.org/registration/MeetingWiki/wiki/ietf95

> implications and take action on them.

We are going to do this remote participation thing  and 
welcome all suggestions to making it a better experience for 
all - remotees,local attendees, WG Chairs, etc.

> connections-- will go really smoothly.

Amen.

Best
Ray

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 09:56:49 -0700

> implications and take action on them.

The complexities and subtleties of this task are significant.

I suggest creating a wiki page for collaboratively developing a list og 
issues, requirements, preferences, fears, etc.  We can add to it (or 
delete from it) as we gain experience.  This will be a long process. 
Eventually the page might get relatively stable, but I suspect only 
relatively.

An obscure example of the challenge:  Being able to see the posters that 
are put up for viewing during the social, since remote attendees aren't 
at the social.  But the posters are worth reviewing.

The rather daunting meta-issue is learning to think and plan for IETF 
Meeting details much as the universal access folks have had to train 
architects to think:  At every decision-point, think about the decision 
in terms of remote attendees and make explicit functionality and 
usability decisions about them.  (Obviously deciding not to accommodate 
remote attendees can be an entirely justifiable choice, depending on the 
topic.)

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net