Subject: [Manycouches] hybrid conference

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 10:31:39 +0200

There is this kind of alternative of a hybrid conference: partly on-site 
unmasked face-to-face in-person, partly remote via a tool Microsoft 
Teams in this case.

ETFA 2020 international conference was held until today.

It is in Austria.

 From the context where I am, I think it is a very rare such kind of 
meeting currently. Most such events I know of have all become fully 
online (PIMRC, CES, IETF, ISO, EU R&D days, ITS World Congress, and 
probably more).  Other events that couldnt go online have simply 
cancelled; some have cancelled with a postponement (Olympics), and 
others cancelled without other announcement (some Motor shows, Auto).  
Some non-conference events, like shows or sport events, are maintained 
with particular limits on the number of participants, distance 
separation, medical testing.

I am wondering whether we will see more and more such hybrid 
conferences, or less and less.

Alex

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 08:27:21 -0700

On 9/11/2020 1:31 AM, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>
> There is this kind of alternative of a hybrid conference: partly
> on-site unmasked face-to-face in-person, partly remote via a tool
> Microsoft Teams in this case.
>
That was a bit what the IETF was doing before social distancing, so we
do have some experience.

> ETFA 2020 international conference was held until today. 
One might wonder why these folks bother traveling to a meeting site to
work on their laptop...
> conferences, or less and less.

I cannot tell, but I can say that for the remote participant the hybrid
mode is distinctly worse than the full online mode. The hybrid model
divides participants in two classes, the on-site set that enjoys all
kindof interactions, and the offline folks with controlled interactions
during the sessions and no participation at all between the sessions.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 11:30:29 +0200 (CEST)

>     Il 11/09/2020 17:27 Christian Huitema <[email-masked]> ha scritto:
> 
>     I cannot tell, but I can say that for the remote participant the hybrid mode is distinctly worse than the full online mode. The hybrid model divides participants in two classes, the on-site set that enjoys all kind of interactions, and the offline folks with controlled interactions during the sessions and no participation at all between the sessions.
> 
On the other hand, the hybrid mode is distinctly better for the on-site participants, so in the end the point is which compromise maximises the value for most people while damaging the others less. I'd say it depends from how many people can actually be on site, and how many would like to be on site but cannot do so because of whatever reason (lack of funding, personal constraints to travel and covid restrictions being three notable ones).

--

Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
[email-masked] mailto:[email-masked] 
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 13:54:52 +0200

Le 14/09/2020 à 11:30, Vittorio Bertola a écrit :
>> I cannot tell, but I can say that for the remote participant the 
>> hybrid mode is distinctly worse than the full online mode. The
>> hybrid model divides participants in two classes, the on-site set
>> that enjoys all kind of interactions, and the offline folks with
>> controlled interactions during the sessions and no participation at
>> all between the sessions.
>> 
> On the other hand, the hybrid mode is distinctly better for the
> on-site participants,

Being better on-site... it depends.

Mask or no mask (remark, last week mask was not required in Austria, 
this week yes).  With a webcam I am allowed to not wear a mask if I so 
want.  But on-site the mask might be mandatory.

Mask presence, gestures, smell, movement, sound are all critical to good 
interaction.  I am still learning how important all these are to our 
interactions.

> so in the end the point is which compromise maximises the value for
> most people while damaging the others less. I'd say it depends from
> how many people can actually be on site, and how many would like to 
> be on site but cannot do so because of whatever reason (lack of
> funding, personal constraints to travel and covid restrictions being
> three notable ones).

I agree, yes.

Alex

> [email-masked]  <mailto:[email-masked]>