Re: [802SEC] Electronic participation in meetings
I would also point out that it is quite possible that one or more of our
meetings have been broadcast clandestinely, given the capabilities of
any of a number of different instant messaging products.
Legislating that the tide shall not come in will not prevent it from
doing so.
-Bob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-
> SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Myles (amyles)
> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 11:57 AM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Electronic participation in meetings
>
> G'day Tony
>
> You noted that one person could object to being recorded and then all
> bets were off. However, it is not clear such an objection would be
valid
> because broadcasting is not quite the same as recording. One could
argue
> that a teleconference feed is no more than a very remote loud speaker.
> No doubt there is case law on this topic.
>
> You also mentioned the risk of someone secretly recording proceedings.
> There is certainly such a risk, but is a risk we have today in F2F
> meetings and teleconferences, in which it would be easy to record to
> audio secretly. Video recording is slightly harder to do secretly but
> not impossible
>
> Andrew
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org]
> On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
> Sent: Thursday, 29 January 2009 2:48 AM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Electronic participation in meetings
>
> Before we all head off down the video conference path, bear in mind
that
> there are existing SA rules per the ops manual that state:
>
> " No use may be made of audio or video recording devices to record the
> proceedings in any
> 802 meetings without the express knowledge and agreement of all
> participants in the meeting."
>
> So all it takes is one person in the room that doesn't want to be
> recorded and all bets are off, because in a teleconference environment
> anyone can be recording the proceedings with or without your
knowledge.
> At least in a F2F meeting it is a little more feasible to spot someone
> taking videos or audio recording.
>
> Actually, this is a potential problem with any form of electronic
> participation.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ivan Reede
> Sent: 28 January 2009 06:31
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Electronic participation in meetings
>
> I think the tools may already be useable with a bit of help, like an
> in-room camera goving remote participants a view of the "front" of the
> room, i.e. where the rpojector and on-site speakers are. I think the
> tools is probably ready to "let in" observers, once all the legal
> ramificatins are ironed out. I would like to see a more mature tool,
the
> current tool maturity is not high enough in my opinion to allow for
> efficient remote participation to a F2F meeting. Observation though
may
> be a very different issue. There may also be something workable if the
> IEEE hires staff to run the remote without bogging down the F2F
meeting
> chair. This "chairs aid" could be aid by the remote participation fee
> and may make the curent tools useable and remove most of the problems
> associated with the current tool immaturity. With ime, as tools
mature,
> one may consider eliminating the "chair's aid"
> although I think one of the problems the tool brings is that it
> distracts the chair's attention from the F2F meeting and people body
> langauge to "operating" the tool. If I look back at the experiment, I
> think that the most frustrating part was when the chair's attention
was
> no longer with conducting the F2F meeting and diverted to "how to make
> the tools work", "organizing remote stuff" etc... so there may be
space,
> introducing the tools "gradually", one step at a time, first with
simple
> observation, then some form of primitive live feedbackand with time,
> full particiaption.
>
> We also have to think about the consequences of how the press could
use
> this new dimension... is this something we want in our F2F meetings?
> Have we fully thought out how would that affect the "political" vs
> "technical" balance in our meetings and if this effect is more
desirable
> than detrimental.
>
> On the other hand, I think these tools already greatly enhance the
100%
> tele-conferences (no F2F mix), adding a "cartoon" level video link
which
> is much better than no video but way less than real video. As tools
> evolve, we may end up with live video... hopefully not so that corps
can
> use this to eavesdrop on every move , on a second by second basis,
with
> live direction from remote sites to their poor F2F live particiant
> actibng as a live puppet under remote control, thereby totally
> destroying whatever is left of the fact that we are supposed to be
> indiidual rather than entity voting...
>
> Just my 2 cents worth...
>
> Ivan Reede
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob O'Hara" <bohara@wysiwyg104.com>
> To: <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 11:05 PM
> Subject: [802SEC] Electronic participation in meetings
>
>
> > To separate the general discussion of electronic participation from
> the
> > experiment run in the Whitespace SG, I have created this new email
> > thread. Please move the general discussion here.
> >
> > I have read the emails from Tony, John, Geoff, and others. They all
> > cite valid issues with the tool used and the problems it created
> running
> > an efficient meeting. I agree that the tool has issues and causes
> > inefficiencies in the meeting. Tool issues are not a reason to not
> > consider how we can open our meetings to more participants, unless
we
> > are just against that idea on general principles.
> >
> > I believe that more participation generates better discussions,
which
> > then generate better standards. If electronic participation will
> allow
> > more people to participate, or even to observe, why shouldn't we
> enable
> > that?
> >
> > -Bob
> >
> > ----------
> > This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
> This list is
> maintained by Listserv.
>
> ----------
> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
> This list is
> maintained by Listserv.
>
> ----------
> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
> This list is maintained by Listserv.
>
> ----------
> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This
> list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.