On 2018-03-08 12:16:18 -0600 (-0600), Jay S Bryant wrote: [...] > Cinder has been doing this for many years and it has worked > relatively well. It requires a good remote speaker and it also > requires the people in the room to be sensitive to the needs of > those who are remote. I.E. planning topics at a time appropriate > for the remote attendees, ensuring everyone speaks up, etc. If > everyone, however, works to be inclusive with remote participants > it works well. > > We have even managed to make this work between separate mid-cycles > (Cinder and Nova) in the past before we did PTGs. [...]
I've seen it work okay when the number of remote participants is small and all are relatively known to the in-person participants. Even so, bridging Doug into the TC discussion at the PTG was challenging for all participants. When meeting in person there is a fair amount of shared body language which helps keep the flow and balance of participants so none of us can start to ramble too much when we need to get through a topic quickly. Remote participants are robbed of that higher bandwidth interaction which extends beyond mere intonation and, perhaps, facial expression. It's harder for someone on the other end of a phone or computer to successfully interject during a heated conversation, and also conversely harder for the in-person participants to interject when a remote speaker is saying something. -- Jeremy Stanley
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
