Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] Electronic participation in meetings

G'day Andrew -

The risk in a F2F meeting is significantly smaller than in an open telecon. In a F2F
meeting, you are dealing with a group of people that are actually there in the room, you
can see what they are doing, and who they are, and if necessary you can even check out
exactly who they are and who they claim to be employed by through the registration system.
In an open telecon, you have absolutely no idea who is on the other end of the feed and
what they are doing with it, remote loudspeaker or not.

If I was sensitive about having my participation recorded in a meeting, I would be very
much more concerned about it if there was a live audio and/or video feed being broadcast
from the room to anybody and their dog, and would act accordingly - by insisting to the
Chair that the only way to preserve my right under the ops manual not to be recorded would
be to kill the electronic feed. If I was Chairing the meeting and was presented with such
a demand, I would consider myself very unwise not to comply.

Your mileage may vary.


-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Myles (amyles) [] 
Sent: 28 January 2009 19:57
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


-----Original Message-----
From: []
On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
Sent: Thursday, 29 January 2009 2:48 AM
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


-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[] On Behalf Of Ivan Reede
Sent: 28 January 2009 06:31
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" <>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 11:05 PM
Subject: [802SEC] Electronic participation in meetings

> To separate the general discussion of electronic participation from
> 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
> 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
> more people to participate, or even to observe, why shouldn't we
> 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.