From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-il1-f169.google.com (mail-il1-f169.google.com [209.85.166.169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92250173 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 22:33:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-il1-f169.google.com with SMTP id i17so736964ilj.11 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 15:33:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=google; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wnmRkYKboAH8zJCZrdHT+Gn/DKgpUQ6lVnKyPQDk2e0=; b=AR49a0Vnv4dm3JSBho21CVzLTpAw6AKYpkMLlF0NkD583G7YZ5+wtgml5dypSZYMud 2hfVQyG1d5bTuI2+7TuzCftNECNvg3nMDkkcS0jnB8f2TmWBOjU2CGLh4fNOy9Ya+Pg/ 2GtHu1wBydy6jnwS6C8nQCjyYL+cINkYFKqTM= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=wnmRkYKboAH8zJCZrdHT+Gn/DKgpUQ6lVnKyPQDk2e0=; b=lZ8bI+z80UrHhRLOTXUBqW9gx+BxrAoVC9smbTvGT6PUp1y41X8faJRnMvX9anASPM Wa6SXx5acgVzEmn6Yeb1GJm6dxTevbAOWKA9c61sL72RaqSFaFEpBB8rxkZQG4yWKLE4 jiTpqEhOl8Mer1q13q9r16y8dvaSAT3kQgPFmuaaLVtiQI21OuDJ3IWKlikyPNUrubxx lW5IvJmZDmveWQ9L3LtpmPbbnCuzbctPmILGDXSp5lh1wSyQ3wAcPtMjjstcm4SPapq9 GeDNqpB/qVmtd7CouCozmFWTA/zMQ2kYqFpGWLOb3UZI/LG/tAwe7kMdvGMu1ylTbQxR eo2A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533vd705mDDIjqL1oIvaGUW/lDPwXunsr47QmbxIlpmWtKQsBOoV LRK4t6KwTSHXByF9ccSiTZSYag== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxN9TU0oJIL6ix/vNDlgeb3nGygOZZkb/SbcRaq0bOTovZyipADlOgJDT4QhLMrlnkFt38wbw== X-Received: by 2002:a92:1310:: with SMTP id 16mr672327ilt.60.1624401203750; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 15:33:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.112] (c-24-9-64-241.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [24.9.64.241]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j12sm8587753ilk.26.2021.06.22.15.33.22 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 22 Jun 2021 15:33:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Maintainers / Kernel Summit 2021 planning kick-off To: Laurent Pinchart Cc: Steven Rostedt , Konstantin Ryabitsev , "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" , David Hildenbrand , James Bottomley , Greg KH , Christoph Lameter , Theodore Ts'o , Jiri Kosina , ksummit@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Shuah Khan References: <5038827c-463f-232d-4dec-da56c71089bd@metux.net> <20210610182318.jrxe3avfhkqq7xqn@nitro.local> <20210610152633.7e4a7304@oasis.local.home> <37e8d1a5-7c32-8e77-bb05-f851c87a1004@linuxfoundation.org> From: Shuah Khan Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 16:33:22 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1 X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 6/18/21 7:46 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Shuah, > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 01:55:23PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote: >> On 6/10/21 1:26 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote: >>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 21:39:49 +0300 Laurent Pinchart 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. > > A moderator to watch online chat and relay questions is I believe very > good for presentations, it's hard for a presenter to keep an eye on a > screen while having to manage the interaction with the audience in the > room (there's the usual joke of the difference between an introvert and > an extrovert open-source developer is that the extrovert looks at *your* > shoes when talking to you, but in many presentations the speaker > nowadays does a fairly good job as watching the audience, at least from > time to time :-)). > > For workshop or brainstorming types of sessions, the highest barrier to > participation for remote attendees is local attendees not speaking in > microphones. That's the number one rule that moderators would need to > enforce, I think all the rest depends on it. This may require a larger > number of microphones in the room than usual. > Absolutely. Moderator has to make sure the following things happen for this to be effective: - Watch chat and Q&A, Raise hand from remote participants - Enforce some kind of taking turns to allow fairness in participation - Have the speaker repeat questions asked in the room (we do that now in some talks - both remote and in-person - chat and Q&A needs reading out for recording) - Explore live Transcription features available in the virtual conf. platform. You still need humans watching the transcription. - Have a running session notes combined with transcription. Any of these options aren't sustainable when large number of people are participating remotely or in-person. In general a small number of people participate either in person or remote in any case, based on my observation in remote and in-person settings. Maybe we can experiment with one or two workshops this time around and see how it works out. If we can figure an effective way, it would be beneficial for people that can't travel for one reason or the other. thanks, -- Shuah