Subject: in-person vs remote participation (was: Newcomers [Was: Evolutionizing the IETF])

From: "George, Wes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:15:56 -0500

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Mikael Abrahamsson
>
> Personally I believe there could be value in describing what the value
> is to attend the meeting physically. I attended the last meeting in
> Stockholm because it meant I only had to pay the entrence fee, since I
> live there.
>
> Getting buy-in from management to allow me to go for a week somewhere
> and not be available in the office, pay for hotel and travel, plus the
> entrence fee, it's hard to justify to management. What is a good answer
> to the question "why?".
>
[WEG] I've had to justify my participation in IETF multiple times in the last few years, and while official duties as a presenter or WG chair made justifying travel easier, prior to that point, I had to try to articulate exactly this. As noted in my other message, this was the first remote meeting for a while for me, and it put into sharp relief the difference between in-person and remote participation. While most folks do indeed attend IETF to attend WG meetings, I think that's only part of the story, and you're right, it's something we need to do a better job of articulating and considering when we attempt to replicate IETF attendance virtually or help new participants feel included.

First and foremost, the act of getting away from the office and the financial and time commitments involved in traveling to a physical meeting a few times a year tends to reinforce the need to "prepare" for the meeting by reading drafts, catching up on IETF work that has languished, etc. The travel and meeting schedule imposes a deadline of sorts, in addition to providing physical separation that allows people to reprioritize their work so that for that week or so, $dayjob becomes secondary to focusing on what's happening in IETF, since everyone "traveled all that way" and "spent all that money" to meet together. The proximity provides an excuse to get work done, whether in a WG meeting, or sitting in the hall collaborating with a co-author in real-time. I don't know how you replicate that virtually, especially in the extremes of timezone differential. I know for me, life intrudes a lot when I haven't physically *left* my normal location and therefore I should be available for the things I would normally do when I am home or in the office. Perhaps if we move to a virtual-only model, we would be able to spread the work out in smaller chunks over more time so that it's more manageable as a portion of your overall workload, or perhaps we keep the defined meeting time as a way to ensure coordination across many timezones, I don't know.

The other things that become important are the "hallway track" and the "many fine lunches and dinners". Those come up when talking about attending IETF in person, but often it's meant to imply that those involved are there for the wrong reasons (i.e. IETF as company-sponsored tourism or job search) rather than to acknowledge its value in ensuring that IETF does make progress by forging personal and professional relationships between its participants. There is so much networking that happens during those that is mostly lost to remote participants, and it really is invaluable. Whether it's trying to work out a compromise on a particularly contentious part of a draft, or stumbling across a problem or solution in a freewheeling conversation, or just talking shop with like-minded folks, I find that this makes IETF a much more rewarding experience. I also find that this makes it easier to make progress in WGs when limited to low-bandwidth communications channels like email, because you now know the other people involved. In person attendance, food and drink provide the opportunity, and are the means, rather than the end. But that requires you to know people well enough at least professionally that you can take advantage of that. I can see that being challenging for those who are newcomers or have only met someone virtually. I am quite sure that there are ways to replicate those more unofficial/social interactions virtually with the improvements in video conferencing and telepresence technology, but I'm not sure it's possible to get past the strong psychology that makes doing it over food and drink more effective.

The whole meatspace vs cyberspace argument has been going on ever since there has been a cyberspace, so I'm not going to act like this is new, but I think we're getting to the point now where the technology is catching up with the science fiction portrayal such that it's worth having the discussion again.

Wes George

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.

---

From: Riccardo Bernardini <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:32:58 +0100

> The other things that become important are the "hallway track" and the "many fine lunches and dinners". Those come up when talking about attending IETF in person, but often it's meant to imply that…

Let me add my own experience here, related to a different environment
(scientific conferences), but also very similar to yours.  Usually, if
I go to a conference it is because I have a paper to present, but that
it is not the only payback of being there.  There is the hall (or bar)
talking with old colleagues of mine, there is the casual meeting of
other researchers (old and young) working in my field with which I
exchange experiences, point of view and maybe a new collaboration can
be born.  Actually, I do not know how this could be replicated with an
online tool.

Let's face it: we are social animals, evolved with  "socialization
tools" that work best in a face-to-face context.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 08:42:26 -0900

On 11/12/12 8:32 AM, Riccardo Bernardini wrote:
> Let me add my own experience here, related to a different
> environment (scientific conferences), but also very similar to yours.
> Usually, if I go to a conference it is because I have a paper to
> present, but that it is not the only payback of being there.  There
> is the hall (or bar) talking with old colleagues of mine, there is
> the casual meeting of other researchers (old and young) working in my
> field with which I exchange experiences, point of view and maybe a
> new collaboration can be born.  Actually, I do not know how this
> could be replicated with an online tool.

Well, I think it's important to be clear that IETF meetings are working
meetings and they exist largely to progress documents, so the goals are
somewhat different.  I think that at this point I've done the remote
participation thing as much as anybody and from my perspective the main
problem is not the tools but that the quality of the experience varies
enormously with the attention/skill of the session chairs.  Some are
attentive to remote participants, some don't even bother to acknowledge
we exist.  There's a WG chairs wiki page on facilitating remote
participation at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/wgchairs/wiki/RemoteParticipation.

I've also had very good experiences using email to make the kind of
contacts you've mentioned - something comes up in a session and sending
out-of-band email directly to the person who said something interesting.

In-person participation brings with it benefits that remote
participation doesn't (and is mandatory for people in certain roles).
But the cost-benefit tradeoff?  I'm not sure, frankly.

Melinda

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:37:58 -0500

>>>>> "George" == George, Wes <[email-masked]> writes:
    George> First and foremost, the act of getting away from the office
    George> and the financial and time commitments involved in traveling
    George> to a physical meeting a few times a year tends to reinforce
    George> the need to "prepare" for the meeting by reading drafts,
    George> catching up on IETF work that has languished, etc. The

+1
I don't see how we will reproduce this online.

also, we talk about cross-area review, and sometimes this is faciliated 
by "WG tourists"...

When participating remotely when there were 12 hours TZ differences, a
really really really hard part was explaining to my kid, that really, I
wasn't home.  

    George> The other things that become important are the "hallway
    George> track" and the "many fine lunches and dinners". Those come
    George> up when talking about attending IETF in person, but often
    George> it's meant to imply that those involved are there for the
    George> wrong reasons (i.e. IETF as company-sponsored tourism or job
    George> search) rather than to acknowledge its value in ensuring

+1

-- 
Michael Richardson
-on the road-