Stream: rust-all-hands-2020 (public)

Topic: Remote meetings


XAMPPRocky (Jan 23 2020 at 15:21, on Zulip):

Hey everyone, we've had some requests for having remote compatible meetings, allowing people who cannot attend in person to still be able to attend the meetings, through video calls. We're wondering if there is a general interest in having this for more meetings?

Pietro Albini (Jan 23 2020 at 15:22, on Zulip):

we probably want that for infra meetings

Pietro Albini (Jan 23 2020 at 15:22, on Zulip):

as aidan might not make it to the all hands

Josh Triplett (Jan 23 2020 at 17:59, on Zulip):

I would, in general, prefer to avoid doing so; it substantially complicates meetings and increases friction. If there's a specific meeting for which we need a specific person or two who are critical to the meeting's success and can't come in person, by all means we should make such arrangements. But I don't think we should be doing that for all meetings.

Josh Triplett (Jan 23 2020 at 17:59, on Zulip):

I also expect that we'll be having some meetings on sensitive topics, for which people will be uncomfortable being on camera. (For instance, trying to talk through sensitive conflicts.)

Josh Triplett (Jan 23 2020 at 18:00, on Zulip):

So I'd suggest that we make it something that can be arranged on request for a specific meeting, if the in-person attendees specifically need an external attendee there to be successful.

Pietro Albini (Jan 23 2020 at 18:00, on Zulip):

oh, I'd definitely not want to make every meeting remote by default

Josh Triplett (Jan 23 2020 at 18:11, on Zulip):

My concern would be in setting the expectation that we'd make a meeting remote because someone wanted to attend remotely, rather than that those attending in person needed someone remote to attend.

XAMPPRocky (Jan 23 2020 at 18:36, on Zulip):

@Josh Triplett This is more about seeing if there's enough interest to see if it's worth setting up the logistics to have software & hardware to help reduce the friction, it's up to the teams to decide to actually make the call.

Josh Triplett (Jan 23 2020 at 18:39, on Zulip):

@XAMPPRocky Thank you for the clarification. In that case, it sounds like there's interest. :)

Josh Triplett (Jan 23 2020 at 18:40, on Zulip):

If it helps, I would also imagine that such logistics might only need to be available in one room, and meetings that need such logistics could then get scheduled in that room.

DPC (Jan 23 2020 at 20:19, on Zulip):

@Josh Triplett that would be difficult as we have concurrent meetings at the same time

Josh Triplett (Jan 23 2020 at 20:19, on Zulip):

@DPC Concurrent meetings that all need remote attendees, that can't be rescheduled to not be concurrent?

DPC (Jan 23 2020 at 20:20, on Zulip):

That's a possibility but for that we will have to know in advance

Josh Triplett (Jan 23 2020 at 20:20, on Zulip):

(I'm not suggesting that they have to be, I'm just suggesting that we shouldn't need such infrastructure in every room. If we need it in two rooms, that's still better than needing it in every room.)

DPC (Jan 23 2020 at 20:20, on Zulip):

Yeah it's most likely going to be opt-in

Last update: Jul 02 2020 at 18:55UTC