Subject: Side meetings in a virtual IETF meeting ?

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2020 00:04:55 +0100

[Bcc iesg]

I think this was not discussed yet:
Side meetings are an important part of travelling to IETF, and
so far i think i have not seen any suggestions how IETF would/could
support side meetings if we where going virtual only.

Even if/when we do have a physical meeting, then there is a physical 
room option for side meetings, but no official IETF option to have
a virtual (webex) conference.

IMHO it would be mandatory to have such an option. Even if the
ad-hoc option would be something like any friendly AD/WG chair
to set up webex for such side-meetings using existing accounts,
and a well understood policy extension:

"Availability of an IETF webex meeting does not constitute any form of
endorsemenet of the topic of the side meeting by the IETF"

Aka: just extend the same policy we have for the physcial rooms for
side meetings.

Cheers
    Toerless

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 20:25:43 -0500

> a virtual conference.

{gratutious incompatible product name removed}

We've have experienced that rooms that are meeting rooms might have working
meetecho, but the problem is that we don't have any meetecho supervision at
the time.

I continue to think that BarBOFs should happen in a bar, and that the side
meeting phenomenon with remote participation is the result of over-scheduling
of participants.

If you want to have a virtual BOF, then have one, just don't try to cram it
into the week.  If you want to make use of high-bandwidth in-person
discussion to make a small design team work better, then do that, but don't
pretend that remote participants can really participate in such a thing.
Take good minutes, and run decisions by the group.

Conferencing systems are widely available for a variety of prices (including
gratis, having no SLA).

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

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2020 02:39:16 +0100

> {gratutious incompatible product name removed}

Please keep up the linux flame! 
(maybe for the IETF crowd it would even make sense try to set up a
petition to be signed..) Ok, different topic.

> meetecho, but the problem is that we don't have any meetecho supervision at

Right.

> meeting phenomenon with remote participation is the result of over-scheduling

That may be so, but is not the case i was concerned about.
Side meetings are also about topics first trying to get organized
and raise enough interest to start using he formal process options (BOF, WG).

And those cases are the ones where the currenty policy of the IETF comes
into play that "you can have an IETF room", but "you can not have an
IETF conf-tool", because obviously (?) rooms do not indicate any support
for the topic in question, whereas a conference call could be. At least
thats the bet explanation i have found so far.

> Take good minutes, and run decisions by the group.

A BOF would have meetecho, as its an official side-meeting i was
think of inofficial side-meetings.

I think we can leave it up to the individual participants to figure out
what type of meeting is best served at which time or type of presence,
there is no single solution best in all cases. But three are options
we do not have  virtual  alternative for. like inofficial side meetings.
And it would be easy to close those gaps. Just a matter of policy, not
additional work (with option <name-too-horrific-for-michael>). Of
course with meetecho it would be more work.

> Conferencing systems are widely available for a variety of prices (including

Sure. My point was solely about the IETF having strange policies that
IMHO inappropriately distinguish between physcial an virtual rooms and
i would like to see that fixed.

Cheers
    Toerless

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2020 08:47:39 -0600

Dear IESG,

> and raise enough interest to start using he formal process options (BOF,

FWIW, this is what the IESG has been targeting with HotRFC (helping to
self-organize people to come up with proposals that make sense to start in
the IETF process).

We started HotRFC as targeting on-site participants - the first two or
three times, we didn't have remote participation available at all, only
providing presenter's elevator pitch slides in the proceedings.

If it's possible to allow remote presenters for Vancouver, and encourage
presenters to set up videoconferencing and add those coordinates in their
slides, that would likely be helpful.

I should probably ask the IESG if they've thought about HotRFC for remote
participants in Vancouver - adding them now.

Best,

Spencer

---

From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2020 07:04:50 -0800

How probable is it that remote presenters will spend most of their allocated 4 minutes trying to find the unmute button?

-- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Email: [email-masked]
Blog: https://marc.petit-huguenin.org
Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug

---

From: Joseph Potvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2020 12:21:40 -0500

RE: "How probable is it that remote presenters will spend most of their
allocated 4 minutes trying to find the unmute button?"

Then only the MIME type presentations would work.

Joseph Potvin

On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 10:05 AM Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> How probable is it that remote presenters will spend most of their
> allocated 4 minutes trying to find the unmute button?
>
> >>> meetecho, but the problem is that we don't have any meetecho
> supervision
> >> at
> >>> the time.
> >>
> >> Right.
> >>
> >>> If you want to have a virtual BOF, then have one, just don't try to
> cram
> >> it

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2020 13:52:46 -0500

Since there are no questions taken, this is a write only event and there is
no real difference between a HotRFC streamed live and a YouTube video.

Except that the YouTube video has a transcript and can be watched at any
time people want to see it with the option of adjusting the speed to watch
it faster or slower.

So a Web page with links to submitted videos would work as well.

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2020 16:22:14 -0600

On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 12:53 PM Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Since there are no questions taken, this is a write only event and there
> is no real difference between a HotRFC streamed live and a YouTube video.
>

I have opinions about this, but don't actually care about the mechanics
after I figured out that Aaron Falk was better at guessing about mechanics
for a successful HotRFC than I was.

But I am still curious if HotRFC has bubbled toward the top of the
prioritized list of things that need to be thought about before March 20,
so I'll wait for an answer about that.

Best,

Spencer

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 17:37:09 -0500

> no real difference between a HotRFC streamed live and a YouTube video.

+1

I have tried to avoid commenting (nit-picking) on HotRFC, since I have yet to
make it to one.  This is one of the reasons why.
I already feel way overscheduled.

(I'd rather have poster presentations at the reception myself)

    > So a Web page with links to submitted videos would work as well.

+5

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

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2020 16:56:36 -0600

Hi, Michael,

> (I'd rather have poster presentations at the reception myself)

On this particular point,

I've done poster duty at three or four IETFs in the past couple of years,
and if I get ANYONE who can stop receptioning long enough to notice the
posters and ask questions, that's a win. If you can have a detailed
conversation with a BOF chair (which is what the posters are for), that's
great, but HotRFC has been running (IIRC 15-25 topics per IETF, so
visualize several hundred people finding the five posters that might be
interesting, and visualize how many more eyeballs you get in a room with
150-250 people who aren't talking to each other and scanning for food and
drinks.

I'm not sure who on the IESG is shepherding HotRFC (either at IETF 107 or
going forward), but it IS worth wondering if having the more speculative
HotRFC talks stay in HotRFC and having people who have been doing BOF
promos and new work item promos as HotRFC talks migrate to poster sessions
(if you have an approved BOF, theoretically you already have at least some
potential participants, so broadcasting might not be as valuable), or even
pre-arranged Sunday night meetings.

But I'm going to try to behave until April, when we see what happened at
IETF 107, what worked, and what didn't, before I make suggestions about
things to change :-)

Best,

Spencer

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2020 10:23:10 +0100

HotRFC and Petchakutcha are the two most simple "side meetings" to offer
remotely because of their unidirectional format. My original ask on the
subject line was about all side meetings, especially other inofficial ones,
and my minimum ask was just about change in policy, use of meetecho
would be even better but understood to be limited by working hours of
volunteers.

Cheers
    Toerless

-- 
---
[email-masked]

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2020 20:40:08 -0500

> would be even better but understood to be limited by working hours of

When you are talking about making an event entirely virtual, you need to ask
yourself if a PetchaKucha to an empty room would be interesting.

I would submit that it would simply not work.
You need the interaction with the audience, if only to see whether the joke
is going the right way or not.

So PHB's point about HotRFC remains.
I want to soften it slightly:  being able to go up to the person afterwards
and chat is the reason it works in person.  That fails for remote presenters,
and for remote audience, and therefore Youtube would be as good.

As for Poster sessions being not attended:  the posters are supposed to be
along the *BANK* line to the beer.  Just like how Fry's Electronics gets you
to buy some more USB sticks, or a few bags of chips.

If you know me, then you know that I have done a *LOT* of IETFs remotely,
including going back to mbone stuff, unicast MP3 streams, etc.
I bitch regularly about slides that aren't available ahead of time.

My problem is with trying to bring in-person interaction to remote
attendees. It results in a really poor remote-interaction, and really poor
in-person interaction.

Either have an in-person meeting, or have a virtual meeting where everyone is
remote (and dammit: you can all afford $80 gamer headsets, and use external
USB adapters).  Just don't try to mix things up.

Meetecho for a group of people who are mostly in the room, and where have
good mic line discipline can work.  But there is an awful lot of work that
can't get done in that format (having nothing to with remote attendees).
That's why we have side meetings or BarBOFs, where we can have a group of 6
to 10 people hash some difficult thing out.  We NEED the non-verbal queues to
have a good conversation, and trying to talk to someone's iPAD just won't cut
it. Sorry.

The goal here is not to eliminate all meetings, nor is it to support people
who can NEVER come to a meeting.  The goal is to reduce the number of
meetings we *have* to have, and to MAXIMIZE how much we do when we do gather.
Is the BarBOF the only way to bring new work to the IETF?  No.
Is it a good way to meet other people who might be able to help?
Yes, but it's not the only way.

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2020 02:01:07 +0000

Hiya,

On 05/03/2020 01:40, Michael Richardson wrote:
> The goal 

I suggest we may have more than one goal. Even one
person may have multiple conflicting goals at the same
time. (I know I do:-)

> here is not to eliminate all meetings, nor is it to support people
> who can NEVER come to a meeting. 

I disagree with that last. I do believe the IETF would
be better, the better we support properly eliciting and
processing useful input from people who can never come
to a f2f meeting.

(It could be that your phrase "the goal here" did not
refer to the goals of the manycouches list, but rather to
a singular point you were making, in which case, sorry
for being dense, my excuse being variance in transatlantic
terminological traits;-)

> The goal is to reduce the number of
> meetings we *have* to have, 

That is another, different but also fine, goal.

S.

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2020 02:28:52 +0000

At previous HotRFC's I have chatted 1:1 with several presenters and got them to come to ACME or other WG and present. Of course if the in-person meeting isn't happening, this is kinda moot.

---

From: Joseph Potvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2020 22:03:29 -0500

My impression is that the main goal presently is to put in place a good
enough 'Plan B' (B for Business) that can handle between 50 and  100
percent of attendees participating remotely. Otherwise, there's a
significant contingency of outright 'Plan C' (C for Cancelled) due to
events outside of organizer's hands.

Roughly speaking, I suggest to define "good enough" as meaning that,
categorizing WG issues and drafting to be resolved as Critical / Important
/ Desireable, that all of the Critical issues/drafts get resolved or
significantly advanced notwithstanding the limitations of the Plan B, and
that Important and Desireable matters get advanced as well as can be done
under the circumstances.

Other international events like trade and promotional shows can cancel or
postpone without consequence beyond financial and marketing disruption.

The work of the IETF dynamically supports global critical infrastructure,
and I see no reason why there cannot be a reasonably complete Plan B
described and resourced in the next two weeks.
https://etherpad.ietf.org:9009/p/ManyCouches

Joseph Potvin
Executive Director, Xalgorithms Foundation
Mobile: 819-593-5983
[email-masked]
https://www.xalgorithms.org

On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 9:01 PM Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Manycouches mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manycouches
>

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2020 06:52:50 +0100

On 2020-03-05, at 02:40, Michael Richardson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> being able to go up to the person afterwards

But that is entirely a tools limitation, or actually a limitation in the way we use our tools.

It would be easy to have hallway rooms (e.g. in meet.jit.si) open for each presentation after the presentation.  Linked from the hotrfc agenda (which could also be made easier to find), so they are one click away.

Yes, that would require local presenters to stay close to their laptops a bit.
It would also benefit from better request queueing.
But if we want to engage remote participants/enable talking to remote presenters, this could be done.

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2020 22:00:49 -0800

> But if we want to engage remote participants/enable talking to remote presenters, this could be done.

Looks like something that we would want to try. It is an alternative to
the "hallway conversations". And trying that with Hot RFC might be a
nice first baby step.

Listening to the various complaints on the IETF lists, I wonder how many
innovative scenarios like that we might try. Mini conference spots in
which people just walk in, just like they walk in to a table in a break
during session. Chat roulette as an alternative to the welcome session.
Some avatar based conference as an alternative to the social event...

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2020 08:42:40 +0100

> is going the right way or not.

Interesting aspect, yes. But wouldn't be top of mind for me to solve.
Would be fun to try to solve though if there was a tools development track.

> and for remote audience, and therefore Youtube would be as good.

The after-presentation chat requirement is IMHO just a variation of the
hallway problem. Did we actually agree in the discussion whether want
audio or texting or both ? 

> [poster, frys, mbone and usb sticks...]

> attendees. It results in a really poor remote-interaction, and really poor

Its IMHO just a big tooling issue. Nothing that could be solved if you
had at least 1 million dollars to spend on good developers and slowly
building up tooling components, incrementally with experimentation
(instead of the usual waterfall waste of money into one complete new
 overdesigned system that will never work).

But not a lot that can be improved IMHO if you think you can get it for free.

> USB adapters).  Just don't try to mix things up.

well known regurgitated argument. I will agree to the local/remote
mix won't work for current tooling. See above on investment need to
solve limitations.

> have a good conversation, and trying to talk to someone's iPAD just won't cut

Audio calls between rooms with multiple people and remote participants
can work very well, i remember a BIER interim in San Jose, USB handsfree
and webex that worked IMHO very well.

But then of course all those tools immediately show how
important fundamentals haven't been solved well for decades. For example
i now often get audio buffer-bloat (especially with RTCweb, depending on
browser, internet connection etc. pps), aka: my voice is 10 seconds behind,
and then of course you come over over extremely rude interrupting always
etc. pp.  And of course there is not even signaling of the problem 
such as a display showing current channel RTT or red blinking light.
And why should there be problem diagnosis for problems that do not need
to exist in the first place ? Just because the industry has shown it's
incapable to fix those problems for decades ?

[10 more rant pages deleted for space]

Just tried the example of one of the IMHO most fundamental tooling issue
we have: No business critical quality audio channels between remote.

Cheers
    Toerless

-- 
---
[email-masked]

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2020 14:37:21 -0500

> It would be easy to have hallway rooms (e.g. in meet.jit.si) open for
    > each presentation after the presentation.  Linked from the hotrfc
    > agenda (which could also be made easier to find), so they are one click
    > away.

    > Yes, that would require local presenters to stay close to their laptops

We should probably give each presenter a stable URN for this room, so that
they can publish this during their presentation, and we'll need to have a
queue system for asynchronous questions.

I know, let's call it: Sunday Meeting Talk-later Protocol. SMTP.
Is that taken?

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2020 15:09:26 -0800

Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]> writes:

[longer virtual room description removed]
> IMHO it would be mandatory to have such an option.

FYI, in the past when participating in a 1000+ person photography group
I held multiple 3-day-weekend hangouts, where we kept a live video chat
open and people came and went over the three days.  It worked amazingly
well; a lot of people met new friends, had great technical and personal
discussions, and occasionally paper notes were posted in front of
cameras saying "I'm the last one here during the night, but am leaving
the camera on to ensure this stays up until tomorrow".

At the time, using the tool I selected, there was a 10 person limit to
the chat (common), and some people hated that because they couldn't get
in.  My solution to this was multiple rooms, where if you failed to get
into one you just overflowed to the next.

In the end: I support this and believe it could certainly work for a
virtual IETF both for morning and cookie-break periods and potentially
even evening breaks as well.

-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 18:00:02 -0500

> even evening breaks as well.

I'd like to point out that we already have:
[email-masked]
For real-time chatting during meetings that doesn't relate to any
specific area or working group, participants are encouraged to use the
"hallway" multi-user chat room on the IETF's XMPP sever.

To join, point your XMPP (Jabber) client at "[email-masked]".
Note that this chat room isn't related to Affiliate Groups, but the
intended social nature of that room is similar to the social nature of
the mailing lists listed below.

( from: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/affiliate/ )

[

This section intentionally left blank for the inevitabile discussion
about the death of XMPP, and
how [ Slack|Discord|Line|Messenger|IRC|ICQ|Signal|Telegram|AOL
AIM|WhatsApp (select one, and only one)]
is clearly much better for this sort of thing.

]

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf