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;
Date:   Wed, 23 Jun 2021 01:59:48 +0300
From:   Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
To:     Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@metux.net>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
        Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>, Christoph Lameter <cl@gentwo.de>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>,
        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: <YNJrZIMs7RvqRBSG@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
References: <YK+esqGjKaPb+b/Q@kroah.com>
 <c46dbda64558ab884af060f405e3f067112b9c8a.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <b32c8672-06ee-bf68-7963-10aeabc0596c@redhat.com>
 <5038827c-463f-232d-4dec-da56c71089bd@metux.net>
 <20210610182318.jrxe3avfhkqq7xqn@nitro.local>
 <YMJcdbRaQYAgI9ER@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
 <20210610152633.7e4a7304@oasis.local.home>
 <37e8d1a5-7c32-8e77-bb05-f851c87a1004@linuxfoundation.org>
 <YMyjryXiAfKgS6BY@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
 <ae51f636-8fb5-20b7-bbc5-37e22edb9a02@linuxfoundation.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ae51f636-8fb5-20b7-bbc5-37e22edb9a02@linuxfoundation.org>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Shuah,

On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 04:33:22PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 6/18/21 7:46 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > 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.

Can we nominate moderators ahead of time ? For workshop-style
discussions, they need to be a person who won't participate actively in
the discussions, as it's impossible to both contribute and moderate at
the same time.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart