Message-ID: <87tum5uyrq.fsf@toke.dk>
Date:   Fri, 11 Jun 2021 00:43:05 +0200
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Cc:     Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@...ux.net>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.de>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
        ksummit@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: Maintainers / Kernel Summit 2021 planning kick-off

Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org> writes:

> On 6/10/21 1:26 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 21:39:49 +0300
>> Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> There will always be more informal discussions between on-site
>>> participants. After all, this is one of the benefits of conferences, by
>>> being all together we can easily organize ad-hoc discussions. This is
>>> traditionally done by finding a not too noisy corner in the conference
>>> center, would it be useful to have more break-out rooms with A/V
>>> equipment than usual ?
>> 
>> I've been giving this quite some thought too, and I've come to the
>> understanding (and sure I can be wrong, but I don't think that I am),
>> is that when doing a hybrid event, the remote people will always be
>> "second class citizens" with respect to the communication that is going
>> on. Saying that we can make it the same is not going to happen unless
>> you start restricting what people can do that are present, and that
>> will just destroy the conference IMO.
>> 
>> That said, I think we should add more to make the communication better
>> for those that are not present. Maybe an idea is to have break outs
>> followed by the presentation and evening events that include remote
>> attendees to discuss with those that are there about what they might
>> have missed. Have incentives at these break outs (free stacks and
>> beer?) to encourage the live attendees to attend and have a discussion
>> with the remote attendees.
>> 
>> The presentations would have remote access, where remote attendees can
>> at the very least write in some chat their questions or comments. If
>> video and connectivity is good enough, perhaps have a screen where they
>> can show up and talk, but that may have logistical limitations.
>> 
>
> You are absolutely right that the remote people will have a hard time
> participating and keeping up with in-person participants. I have a
> couple of ideas on how we might be able to improve remote experience
> without restricting in-person experience.
>
> - Have one or two moderators per session to watch chat and Q&A to enable
>    remote participants to chime in and participate.
> - Moderators can make sure remote participation doesn't go unnoticed and
>    enable taking turns for remote vs. people participating in person.
>
> It will be change in the way we interact in all in-person sessions for
> sure, however it might enhance the experience for remote attendees.

This is basically how IETF meetings function: At the beginning of every
session, a volunteer "jabber scribe" is selected to watch the chat and
relay any questions to a microphone in the room. And the video streaming
platform has a "virtual queue" that remove participants can enter and
the session chairs are then responsible for giving people a chance to
speak. Works reasonably well, I'd say :)

-Toke

Powered by blists - more mailing lists