Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:206:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id 6csp777736pxj; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 12:28:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwWcs0mBRL+kAenTHe37NbEuQeaBvbRexzYkO6/p0XdCsgv2iFD+uIXqaVy3JnJpVBrDQCy X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:31a8:: with SMTP id dj8mr79674edb.296.1623353296967; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 12:28:16 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1623353296; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=CnS3pZ5GtrAdTiR0jmfjpk2K9vKQ6O5lQwhAbaVMGYLprdicqHeV519v0sufms/If8 SKFYkxzSilrtkEHOkEDvy5YkgD9zMjz6zExyltkdrCnPMCgNjZW6ODnuoGY8JEASoYB4 FTaKDimsj8rg7alxayEy2hJgw0lGuKSb2mpcJSiRwTSsrmocxZmeW9HmeVGxeiMC5n4X eZTbUUENBJzgyOtcKq3QUYOhUVJBpq7LmRAF8it7q7ojY6EiXg8vMeRnGIBSaUBmSqoW tGJd6fuQKTP8/oVryGlreMDjPqy5tRI5e98CNSS2ueFgPtWUKhvoqyGwzxJ9DoaWg8fq ZDTQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :references:in-reply-to:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=V4y+M0TgIcxLnhYXdTxOydGr03ju6DQ0s7Z3mRKwZoc=; b=OfpRH+oMF+7wLatCEwMn3k8UuGhoFHHfOJ5nSPjWaBOYiEU1RT5SvIF2Q82265Qwgt P5hRtvZKOrPpuFBcnvFSpJpKMvOw6KoM3djY3nBITj9CEta1/1EUuPcbnIi+EYaDoLnG OgM9kDhC9Bexjbbf5coSwO7h5D6cMrqFG/TcVxo/IueVwUDlybdZQ8TlPEDX1piND/z7 Iehsu0fSaGUueIQbMQuNT3eGLChifVNga7ZkdJI5e/f9hR24CN5vaEAjtaUZa4QAkQyx z/HBEJspTQ7wjqSRdQ8TbH+RwiqTduqpKUCjtLcyKqZTzC6cj5uEMQwQeFN37xYP+zDV tttw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id f27si2806423eje.120.2021.06.10.12.27.48; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 12:28:16 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230364AbhFJT2e (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 10 Jun 2021 15:28:34 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:33540 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230059AbhFJT2d (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jun 2021 15:28:33 -0400 Received: from oasis.local.home (cpe-66-24-58-225.stny.res.rr.com [66.24.58.225]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 597D361376; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 19:26:35 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 15:26:33 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Laurent Pinchart Cc: 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 Subject: Re: Maintainers / Kernel Summit 2021 planning kick-off Message-ID: <20210610152633.7e4a7304@oasis.local.home> In-Reply-To: References: <5038827c-463f-232d-4dec-da56c71089bd@metux.net> <20210610182318.jrxe3avfhkqq7xqn@nitro.local> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.3 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. The evening events (including going out to the bars and just hanging with other developers) is a lost cause to try and have remote participation. Then the last day, perhaps have a bunch of rooms for various topics where people can come in and continue the conversation from the evening events but with a remote audience that can ask questions. Again, you may need to "bribe" the attendees to come to this and interact ;-) I'm all for making a better remote experience for hybrid events, but I'm against doing so by making it a worse experience for those that attend. Not saying that you suggested this, but I have heard of ideas about limiting what happens so that the live attendees do not have any advantage over the remote ones. -- Steve