|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
Sorry Andrew if you are offended by what I said.
Clearly until we are able to hold face to face meetings, there is no choice and there will be no hybrid meetings – we’re stuck with virtual only. My observations are in the context of when we are able to hold face to face meetings again. We have talked about this before, and it seems appropriate to use what we’ve learned through 2020 to consider how we can leverage virtual presence in the future. I is one possible means to improve our process, improve participation, and thus improve our standards.
Given the variables you enumerate, the time line for physical attendance will not be the same for all IEEE 802 participants and potential participants. There will be a period where some are able to attend physical meetings and others cannot. The hybrid meeting provides a means for all to participate. There are definitely advantages to in person physical attendance. Virtual attendance is a second choice IMO. Still it is better than no attendance.
The alternative you seem to be suggesting is we abandon face to face meetings until every person who might wish to is able to attend physically. I find that and unacceptable alternative; it is both unrealistic and disturbing. While I understand and sympathize with the situation that some will be under different restrictions than others, I strongly disagree that “equally bad” is fair at all. We have a duty to the majority, and the vast industries that 802 standards support, to move forward.
When we can meet the threshold for holding face to face in person meetings productively, we should do so. We should IMO do all that we can to accommodate those still unable to travel but not pace all of 802 activity on the needs of a few.
That is one person’s opinion. Thank you for considering.
I agree with most of your comments. However, I have an issue related to the concept of “choice”.
We could have introduced hybrid attendance pre- COVID. If we had done so, we probably would have accepted that remote attendance is not as good as in-person attendance for a variety of reasons, but we would have made it the “choice” of the remote attendee to have a lesser experience (we probably would have arranged the participation of remote attendees to occur in a way that did not diminish the in-person experience).
However, we are now in the COVID-era and we need to consider hybrid attendance in that context. At this time, the reality is that many IEEE 802 stakeholder have no “choice” for various reasons:
Given that some/many IEEE 802 stakeholders have no “choice” at this time, I assert that it is unreasonable to introduce hybrid meetings at this time because it introduces an unfair power/influence imbalance. I would prefer to maintain fairness for all rather than access the benefits of in-person meetings.
Of course, it is unreasonable to ban hybrid meetings forever because only a few stakeholders can’t reasonably attend in-person meetings. However, I would suggest we only introduce hybrid meetings when the vast majority of stakeholders (say 95%+) have a genuine “choice”.
I have to agree with John that this is an important issue and one we should begin considering now. There are a number of complexities involved and requires careful consideration moving forward.
There will be additional cost. I would expect that most of the venues we use can provide the requires bandwidth. The network services provider that we’ve been using has experience with IETF who has held hybrid meetings for some time. I’m sure they can give us hard numbers from experience both in terms of bits and money. I suggest we ask them.
I acknowledge Andrew’s concern about unequal participation. Face to face is better. Those attending remotely will be at a deficit. I do not believe we can fully mitigate this difference. Nos should we compromise the face to face experience and advantages to try. It is part of an attendee’s decision making process: they must consider the costs and benefits. I believe our responsibility as an organization is to provide information so attendees can make an informed choice, not make that choice on their behalf. Again I think we can look to IETF for some relevant experience. While our organization is very different than IETF we do have many members who have done both, so can share useful experiences.
To John’s point regarding the restructuring ad-hoc: I suggest that this is a key part of that discussion. I agree it is a high priority. I’d put it at the same priority as updating our process to improve efficiency, as we’ve been discussing in the ad-hoc. I may be agreeing with John that major restructuring is not required to address hybrid meetings as well as achieve improvements, though part of the “structure” of 802 has been the face to face only meetings, so changing this is in deed a structural change IMO. My view of “restructuring” may be different from what others think.
My $0.02 FWIW.
I see this matter as very important for us to start thinking about now.
There has been a lot of debate about when 802 will get back to being able to meet F2F. It is unclear to me what the 802 EC approved criteria is on this matter, though some may have their opinions. It is unclear to me, however that all individuals wishing to return to F2F meeting will be able to at the same time, due to country (departing / arriving) travel restrictions, or company travel / budget restrictions.
Therefore, in order to ensure an open process, my own personal belief is we need to be prepared for hybrid meetings. This thread talks about the tools. Fine that is part of the equation.
However, we also need to understand cost issues – will the network resources we provide at our meetings be able to support this? Will we need more BW in/ out of the meeting given the multiple meetings that occur. What rule modifications do we need to consider?
Personally, I see this as a bigger immediate issue that the current restructuring ad hoc, as we need to be prepared for our current structure to support what I foresee as being inevitable.
See the below status update from Erin. Regards,
-------- Original message --------
From: Erin Spiewak <email@example.com>
Date: 2/5/21 18:56 (GMT-05:00)
To: "paul.nikolich" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Fw: [802SEC] SA support for hybrid meetings -- status update request
The SA Central Services team, led by Mary Lynne, is working in conjunction with MCE on evaluating tools to be used for virtual/hybrid meetings. The prime focus of SA has been virtual tools (assessing different suppliers for webinars, workshops, and live/pre-recorded exhibitor booth sessions, etc). SA is awaiting further info from MCE regarding the hybrid platform/supplier specifics and will then evaluate. I will keep you updated as we gain information.
Also, you may be aware of this already, MCE has some tips and considerations when the time comes to consider Hybrid, which can be found here.
Have a nice weekend,
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 7:48 PM paul.nikolich <email@example.com> wrote:
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1