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

Re: [802SEC] Electronic participation in meetings

Colleagues,  I have to agree with Andrew on this point.  Given the
current functionality of today's converged cell-phone/PDA/SmartPhones it
is not hard to imagine folks capturing audio with a Bluetooth mike or
video & audio with a cell-phone/camcorder that would be undetectable
during a normal F2F meeting.  So I think we need to observe that such a
rule is clearly unenforceable for both F2F and electronic participants,
so is probably better described as an "etiquette guideline" rather than
a strictly observable rule.  The choice to allow just
electronic-observers (let alone electronic-participants) may increase
the ease of making clandestine recordings somewhat but the converse does
not hold; prohibiting such access does not prevent such recordings.  

I think we would need to examine the original justifications behind the
creation of the "NO Recording" rule to decide if there is a substantial
difference in the risk or not.  What is it that we are trying to protect
against and is that still relevant today ???   

So I think we need to seek the guidance of IEEE-SA on the intent of that
rule before deciding if it should influence our decisions/policies.  

But I continue to have concerns about the prospect of embracing
electronic participants nonetheless.  

With a Face-To-Face meeting in session, I believe there are 3 distinct
levels of electronic interaction: 

1. Electronic observers that can see and hear the presentations and
discussions via WebEx & telecon, and can possibly submit questions to
the presenter or group at large but no voting or motions.  

2. Electronic presenters who can remotely give a WebEx and telecon
presentation to the F2F group and the observers, and response to
questions with/without the video talking head.  

3. Electronic participants who can perform all the same functions as F2F

I believe that with the state of today's tools #3 is definitely not
possible without serious inequities between the two participant groups,
so I would suggest that instead we opt for non-hybrid participant groups
(either all-electronic or all F2F) but I think we have ample
opportunities to explore applications for #1 and #2 to enhance our
meetings today.  As the state of collaboration tools mature we may get
to a level where the parity of the #3 hybrid is good enough to be useful
and beneficial.  I don't think we are close to that today.  

So let's focus on the things that work and steer clear of the things
that do not and we'll all benefit !!!       :-)   

Thanx,  Buzz
Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
Executive Secretary, IEEE-802 LMSC
Boeing IT
PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
Seattle, WA  98124-2207
Ph: (425) 373-8960    Fx: (425) 865-7960
Cell: (425) 417-1022

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Myles (amyles) [mailto:amyles@CISCO.COM] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 11:57 AM
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.

This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.