Subject: Thinking laterally

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 09:44:01 -0500

Thinking of the remote participant fee. As someone whose travel
restrictions prevent attending in certain parts of the world:

* I have no problem paying a fee but I am not the decision maker
* Paying a fee is better for my CFO
* Not paying a fee is even better for my CFO unless we get something for it

One thing I really would like more of as a remote attendee is video of the
sessions. That is something worth paying for and it is something that we
should have adequate technology base for. If video streaming sessions
really is more than plugging in a camera... we is still doin it wrong.

So kicking in $100 a session for video is a no-brainer. Can make this an
advance payment thing. The video is only guaranteed if at least one person
drops the $100 though and the list of 'sponsors' of the video is only
published after the ability to sign up closes.

If someone wants to add video after the fact they pay a full conference fee
per session.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:32:51 -0500

> * Not paying a fee is even better for my CFO unless we get something for it

I think if you tell your CFO "As a paid attendee, I am obligated to pay full boat, so here's the receipt," your CFO will pay without complaining.   I am sure there are marginal cases where the CFO will not pay, but I would expect cases where the CFO _could_ pay but won't to be fairly uncommon.

> One thing I really would like more of as a remote attendee is video of the sessions. That is something worth paying for and it is something that we should have adequate technology base for. If video streaming sessions really is more than plugging in a camera... we is still doin it wrong.

What I would like to see here is a camera on every microphone, on the presenter, on the chairs, and maybe one pointing back at the room, and someone or something picking which camera to send to the feed at any given time, plus a separate slide feed.   The feed in each meeting room should be the slides plus whatever the current video feed is.   Registered attendees, regardless of what they paid, would be able to ask questions in the mic line with video (optional) and audio, or else by typing text that would appear on the screen when their turn came.

This is eminently doable in principle, but I suspect not sufficiently automatic at present for us to actually make it work.   I suspect the meetecho people _could_ do this, but not at a cost that would make sense for an IETF meeting (yet).

> So kicking in $100 a session for video is a no-brainer. Can make this an advance payment thing. The video is only guaranteed if at least one person drops the $100 though and the list of 'sponsors' of the video is only published after the ability to sign up closes.
> 
> If someone wants to add video after the fact they pay a full conference fee per session.

If the video has been captured, I think it's going to be hard sell to put it behind a paywall, since it's part of the proceedings and hence part of the consensus process.   We don't paywall the audio; I think the principle is similar.

So I think that your idea of voting with your wallet probably isn't the right approach--it's not wrong, but I think you are setting your sights too low.

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 09:43:57 -0600

We already have video for sessions that use Meetecho.  While not perfect,
it's a great way to participate remotely.   And, it uses protocols that we
have developed and are developing in IETF.

Hopefully, meeting minutes for all the sessions that use Meetcho have links
to the recordings.  If not, you can find them here:
http://www.ietf.org/meeting/91/remote-participation.html#Meetecho
I've gone back to the recordings when prepare meeting minutes.

Just as a note, I am not commenting either way on the charging thing.  I
see the obvious advantage but I also think there's a number of
disadvantages.  Per my comment earlier about meeting minutes, wouldn't it
be a real turnoff if someone was wanting to catch-up with a WG, but had to
pay to see the corresponding video recording from a meeting?

Regards,
Mary.

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]
> wrote:

---

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:48:49 -0500

Hi Ted,

--On February 27, 2015 at 10:32:51 AM -0500 Ted Lemon 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I think if you tell your CFO "As a paid attendee, I am obligated to pay
> full boat, so here's the receipt," your CFO will pay without complaining.
> I am sure there are marginal cases where the CFO will not pay, but I
> would expect cases where the CFO _could_ pay but won't to be fairly
> uncommon.
>
>> One thing I really would like more of as a remote attendee is video of
>> the sessions. That is something worth paying for and it is something
>> that we should have adequate technology base for. If video streaming
>> sessions really is more than plugging in a camera... we is still doin it
>> wrong.
>
> What I would like to see here is a camera on every microphone, on the
> presenter, on the chairs, and maybe one pointing back at the room, and
> someone or something picking which camera to send to the feed at any
> given time, plus a separate slide feed.   The feed in each meeting room
> should be the slides plus

Great - so now the CFO can double-check that he is getting value for money 
by making sure his company employee really was paying attention in the 
session they claimed to be in! I wonder how many current attendees would 
suddenly find themselves having to participate remotely after their CFO 
decided they don't really need to spend all that money to send them some 
place to sit in a meeting not apparently doing anything. Or are we also 
going to video the hall ways, so those all important hall way conversations 
(which some people say are more important than the meetings) can be tracked 
by CFOs to determine value for money?

So be careful what you ask for...

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 11:27:12 -0500

On Feb 27, 2015, at 10:48 AM, Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Great - so now the CFO can double-check that he is getting value for money by making sure his company employee really was paying attention in the session they claimed to be in!

I would expect such a CFO to have a very short tenure--that would be a total waste of time, and how is the CFO to distinguish between "didn't need to say anything" and "wasn't paying attention?"

> I wonder how many current attendees would suddenly find themselves having to participate remotely after their CFO decided they don't really need to spend all that money to send them some place to sit in a meeting not apparently doing anything.

This would be a great outcome.

> Or are we also going to video the hall ways, so those all important hall way conversations (which some people say are more important than the meetings) can be tracked by CFOs to determine value for money?

I think this is future work, but yeah, that's an issue that I think we ought someday to try to address.

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:49:53 -0600

> This would be a great outcome.

That would be a cultural disaster for the IETF.  If you don't have to
go anywhere to attend, will you even make time for more than the WG
meetings in which you have a direct interest?  Probably not.  And what
of all the hallway and bar BoFs?  Gone.

But remote participation fees have nothing to do with hastening such
an outcome.  Remote participation experience does.  But I suspect that
f2f participation is always just a matter of travel budget: either you
have it (you'll attend) or you don't (you won't attend).

Nico
--

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 11:53:32 -0500

> of all the hallway and bar BoFs?  Gone.

Ubiquitous WiFi in meeting rooms has already made it the case that only those people who want to actually attend to the sessions where their bodies are parked.   This is just the cross-area review problem wearing another hat.   I agree it's a problem, but I don't think the fact that people fly in for meetings makes it less of a problem.

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 11:09:07 -0600

> Ubiquitous WiFi in meeting rooms has already made it the case that only those people who want to actually attend to the sessions where their bodies are parked.   This is just the cross-area review…

That's true as to attendance of WG meetings by people not actually
that interested.  Ubiquitous wifi has not negatively affected hallway
conversations (not that much anyways) nor bar BoFs (not at all).

Nico
--

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 13:10:24 -0500

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Hopefully, meeting minutes for all the sessions that use Meetcho have
> links to the recordings.  If not, you can find them here:
The idea was to provide a way for me as a remote participant to guarantee
that the video is there.

I was not suggesting paywalling it. More a sponsorship sort of model. If I
am attending a session remotely and it is core to my work I am going to
kick in the cash in case nobody else does.

I don't want it paywalled even if I am paying though.

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 12:17:50 -0600

> I don't want it paywalled even if I am paying though.

Right.  The honor system will do.

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:29:51 -0800

> * Not paying a fee is even better for my CFO unless we get something for it

I agree with you. IETF should always consider the full community within the
world not only few regions or majority participants' region.

> really is more than plugging in a camera... we is still doin it wrong.
I think IETF can provide such services but need to do some procedures that
make the rules for that to save flexibility.

(....)
> If someone wants to add video after the fact they pay a full conference

The fees proposed should not be per session because the f2f attendees don't
pay fees per session. The minimum We have is per day fees.

AB

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 17:35:41 -0500

> given time, plus a separate slide feed.  The feed in each meeting room

yes, this is the only part of meetecho that is missing: multiple cameras.
I suggest that while we might need the switcher (that's the technical term
for the person who picks the camera feeds...) in the short-term, I suggest
that in the long term, that we should send all feeds, and the end users
pick.   Perhaps one of our microphone/room management protocols (e.g UMPIRE),
could allow feedback from the remote people as to what the "best" feed is
at any time for the purpose of assembling a useful single-video feed.

    > This is eminently doable in principle, but I suspect not sufficiently
    > automatic at present for us to actually make it work.  I suspect the
    > meetecho people _could_ do this, but not at a cost that would make
    > sense for an IETF meeting (yet).

It would be good to know what the capital and incremental costs might be, and
if a voluntary remote participation fee could fund it.

For meetings that I can not attend due to pure funding reasons,  the
remote attendance fee might also be an issue.  For meetings that I can not
attend due to logistical reasons (lack of childcare, conflict with family
event on edge weekend, lack of visa), a voluntary remote attendance fee is
way less than the airfare...

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
]     [email-masked]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 17:40:24 -0500

Nico Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > But remote participation fees have nothing to do with hastening such an
    > outcome.  Remote participation experience does.  But I suspect that f2f
    > participation is always just a matter of travel budget: either you have
    > it (you'll attend) or you don't (you won't attend).

there are more logistical factors than just budget...
It's true that some are ameliorated with larger budgets...

For instance, a visa that is approved so late that you have to book a
    fullfare ticket, pay the late fee for IETF, and book the suite at the
    hotel, and that screws your budget.

more money also lets you hire visa consultants, baby sitters, bring your
     entire family if you can't leave them behind, fly on shorter, more
     direct routes to deal with conflicts,etc.