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.