Maintainers / Kernel Summit 2021 planning kick-off

[ Feel free to forward this to other Linux kernel mailing lists as
  appropriate -- Ted ]

This year, the Maintainers and Kernel Summit is currently planned to
be held in Dublin, Ireland, September 27 -- 29th.  Of course, this is
subject to change depending on how much progress the world makes
towards vaccinating the population against the COVID-19 virus, and
whether employers are approving conference travel.  At this point,
there's a fairly good chance that we will need to move to a virtual
conference format, either for one or both of the summits.

As in previous years, the Maintainers Summit is invite-only, where the
primary focus will be process issues around Linux Kernel Development.
It will be limited to 30 invitees and a handful of sponsored
attendees.

The Kernel Summit is organized as a track which is run in parallel
with the other tracks at the Linux Plumbers Conference (LPC), and is
open to all registered attendees of LPC.

Linus has generated a core list of people to be invited to the
Maintainers Summit, and the program committee will be using that list
a starting point of people to be considered.  People who suggest
topics that should be discussed at the Maintainers Summit will also be
added to the list for consideration.  To make topic suggestions for
the Maintainers Summit, please send e-mail to the
ksummit@lists.linux.dev with a subject prefix of [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT].

(Note: The older ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org list has
been migrated to lists.linux.dev, with the subscriber list and
archives preserved.)

The other job of the program committee will be to organize the program
for the Kernel Summit.  The goal of the Kernel Summit track will be to
provide a forum to discuss specific technical issues that would be
easier to resolve in person than over e-mail.  The program committee
will also consider "information sharing" topics if they are clearly of
interest to the wider development community (i.e., advanced training
in topics that would be useful to kernel developers).

44 more lines

On Mon, 19 Apr 2021, Theodore Ts'o wrote:

This year, the Maintainers and Kernel Summit is currently planned to
be held in Dublin, Ireland, September 27 -- 29th.  

Hi Ted,

given the fact that OSS is being relocated from Dublin to Washington [1], 
is Kernel Summit following that direction?

[1] https://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/press-release/the-linux-foundation-announces-open-source-summit-embedded-linux-conference-2021-will-move-from-dublin-ireland-to-seattle-washington/

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs

On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 12:29:52PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:

On Mon, 19 Apr 2021, Theodore Ts'o wrote:

quoted

This year, the Maintainers and Kernel Summit is currently planned to
be held in Dublin, Ireland, September 27 -- 29th.  

Given the fact that OSS is being relocated from Dublin to Washington [1], 
is Kernel Summit following that direction?

[1] https://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/press-release/the-linux-foundation-announces-open-source-summit-embedded-linux-conference-2021-will-move-from-dublin-ireland-to-seattle-washington/

Apologies for the delay in responding; I wasiting for the LPC to post
its announcement that the LPC will be going 100% virtual:

   https://www.linuxplumbersconf.org/blog/2021/index.php/2021/04/30/linux-plumbers-goes-fully-virtual/

As the LPC planning committee stated,

   "Unfortunately, the safety protocols imposed by event venues in the
   US require masks and social distancing which make it impossible to
   hold the interactive part of Plumbers (the Microconferences)."

The Maintainer's Summit is even more interactive and discussion
focused than most of the Microconferences.  In addition, for the last
few years, the Kernel Summit is run as a track at the LPC.  As a
result, both the Maintainer's and Kernel Summit will be held virtually
this year, using the LPC infrastructure, and will not be colocated
with OSS to Seattle.  We'll make sure the dates (plus some buffer for
travel) won't overlap to avoid creating conflicts for those who are
planning to attend OSS in Seattle.

I know we're all really hungry for some in-person meetups and
discussions, but at least for LPC, Kernel Summit, and Maintainer's
Summit, we're going to have to wait for another year,

Cheers,

					- Ted

On Fri, 30 Apr 2021, Theodore Ts'o wrote:

I know we're all really hungry for some in-person meetups and
discussions, but at least for LPC, Kernel Summit, and Maintainer's
Summit, we're going to have to wait for another year,

Well now that we are vaccinated: Can we still change it?

On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 03:23:03PM +0200, Christoph Lameter wrote:

On Fri, 30 Apr 2021, Theodore Ts'o wrote:

quoted

I know we're all really hungry for some in-person meetups and
discussions, but at least for LPC, Kernel Summit, and Maintainer's
Summit, we're going to have to wait for another year,

Well now that we are vaccinated: Can we still change it?

Speak for yourself, remember that Europe and other parts of the world
are not as "flush" with vaccines as the US currently is :(

greg k-h

On Thu, 2021-05-27 at 15:29 +0200, Greg KH wrote:

On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 03:23:03PM +0200, Christoph Lameter wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 30 Apr 2021, Theodore Ts'o wrote:

quoted

I know we're all really hungry for some in-person meetups and
discussions, but at least for LPC, Kernel Summit, and
Maintainer's Summit, we're going to have to wait for another
year,

Well now that we are vaccinated: Can we still change it?

Speak for yourself, remember that Europe and other parts of the world
are not as "flush" with vaccines as the US currently is :(

The rollout is accelerating in Europe.  At least in Germany, I know
people younger than me are already vaccinated.  I think by the end of
September the situation will be better ... especially if the EU and US
agree on this air bridge (and the US actually agrees to let EU people
in).

One of the things Plumbers is thinking of is having a meetup at what
was OSS EU but which is now in Seattle.  The Maintainer's summit could
do the same thing.  We couldn't actually hold Plumbers in Seattle
because the hotels still had masks and distancing requirements for
events that effectively precluded the collaborative aspects of
microconferences, but evening events will be governed by local
protocols, rather than the Hotel, which are already more relaxed.

Regards,

James

On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 07:58:10AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:

On Thu, 2021-05-27 at 15:29 +0200, Greg KH wrote:

quoted

On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 03:23:03PM +0200, Christoph Lameter wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 30 Apr 2021, Theodore Ts'o wrote:

quoted

I know we're all really hungry for some in-person meetups and
discussions, but at least for LPC, Kernel Summit, and
Maintainer's Summit, we're going to have to wait for another
year,

Well now that we are vaccinated: Can we still change it?

Speak for yourself, remember that Europe and other parts of the world
are not as "flush" with vaccines as the US currently is :(

The rollout is accelerating in Europe.  At least in Germany, I know
people younger than me are already vaccinated.  I think by the end of
September the situation will be better ... especially if the EU and US
agree on this air bridge (and the US actually agrees to let EU people
in).

One of the things Plumbers is thinking of is having a meetup at what
was OSS EU but which is now in Seattle.  The Maintainer's summit could
do the same thing.  We couldn't actually hold Plumbers in Seattle
because the hotels still had masks and distancing requirements for
events that effectively precluded the collaborative aspects of
microconferences, but evening events will be governed by local
protocols, rather than the Hotel, which are already more relaxed.

Umm.  Let's remember that the vaccines are 33-93% effective [1],
which means that there's approximately a 100% certainty that at least
one person arriving at the event from a trans-atlantic flight has been
exposed to someone who has the virus.  I'm not convinced that holding a
"more relaxed protocol" event is a great idea.

[1] Depending exactly which vaccine, which variant, how many doses, etc, etc
https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-preprint-from-phe-on-vaccine-effectiveness-against-the-b-1-617-2-indian-variant/

On Fri, 2021-05-28 at 16:11 +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:

On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 07:58:10AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 2021-05-27 at 15:29 +0200, Greg KH wrote:

quoted

On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 03:23:03PM +0200, Christoph Lameter
wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 30 Apr 2021, Theodore Ts'o wrote:

quoted

I know we're all really hungry for some in-person meetups and
discussions, but at least for LPC, Kernel Summit, and
Maintainer's Summit, we're going to have to wait for another
year,

Well now that we are vaccinated: Can we still change it?

Speak for yourself, remember that Europe and other parts of the
world are not as "flush" with vaccines as the US currently is :(

The rollout is accelerating in Europe.  At least in Germany, I know
people younger than me are already vaccinated.  I think by the end
of September the situation will be better ... especially if the EU
and US agree on this air bridge (and the US actually agrees to let
EU people in).

One of the things Plumbers is thinking of is having a meetup at
what was OSS EU but which is now in Seattle.  The Maintainer's
summit could do the same thing.  We couldn't actually hold Plumbers
in Seattle because the hotels still had masks and distancing
requirements for events that effectively precluded the
collaborative aspects of microconferences, but evening events will
be governed by local protocols, rather than the Hotel, which are
already more relaxed.

Umm.  Let's remember that the vaccines are 33-93% effective [1],
which means that there's approximately a 100% certainty that at least
one person arriving at the event from a trans-atlantic flight has
been exposed to someone who has the virus.  I'm not convinced that
holding a "more relaxed protocol" event is a great idea.

Well, I'm not going to get into a debate over the effectiveness of the
current vaccines.  I will say that all conferences have to now
recognize that a sizeable proportion of former attendees will have
fears about travelling and therefore remote components are going to be
a fixture of conferences going forward.

However, while we should accommodate them, we can't let these fears
override people willing to take the risk and meet in person.

James

On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 08:27:44AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:

On Fri, 2021-05-28 at 16:11 +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:

quoted

On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 07:58:10AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 2021-05-27 at 15:29 +0200, Greg KH wrote:

quoted

On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 03:23:03PM +0200, Christoph Lameter
wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 30 Apr 2021, Theodore Ts'o wrote:

quoted

I know we're all really hungry for some in-person meetups and
discussions, but at least for LPC, Kernel Summit, and
Maintainer's Summit, we're going to have to wait for another
year,

Well now that we are vaccinated: Can we still change it?

Speak for yourself, remember that Europe and other parts of the
world are not as "flush" with vaccines as the US currently is :(

The rollout is accelerating in Europe.  At least in Germany, I know
people younger than me are already vaccinated.  I think by the end
of September the situation will be better ... especially if the EU
and US agree on this air bridge (and the US actually agrees to let
EU people in).

One of the things Plumbers is thinking of is having a meetup at
what was OSS EU but which is now in Seattle.  The Maintainer's
summit could do the same thing.  We couldn't actually hold Plumbers
in Seattle because the hotels still had masks and distancing
requirements for events that effectively precluded the
collaborative aspects of microconferences, but evening events will
be governed by local protocols, rather than the Hotel, which are
already more relaxed.

Umm.  Let's remember that the vaccines are 33-93% effective [1],
which means that there's approximately a 100% certainty that at least
one person arriving at the event from a trans-atlantic flight has
been exposed to someone who has the virus.  I'm not convinced that
holding a "more relaxed protocol" event is a great idea.

Well, I'm not going to get into a debate over the effectiveness of the
current vaccines.  I will say that all conferences have to now

6 more quoted lines

The interesting question is how we'll make sure that those people will
not be de facto excluded from the community, or end up as second-class
citizens.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

Matthew Wilcox [off-list ref] writes:

On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 07:58:10AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 2021-05-27 at 15:29 +0200, Greg KH wrote:

quoted

On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 03:23:03PM +0200, Christoph Lameter wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 30 Apr 2021, Theodore Ts'o wrote:

quoted

I know we're all really hungry for some in-person meetups and
discussions, but at least for LPC, Kernel Summit, and
Maintainer's Summit, we're going to have to wait for another
year,

Well now that we are vaccinated: Can we still change it?

Speak for yourself, remember that Europe and other parts of the world
are not as "flush" with vaccines as the US currently is :(

The rollout is accelerating in Europe.  At least in Germany, I know
people younger than me are already vaccinated.  I think by the end of
September the situation will be better ... especially if the EU and US
agree on this air bridge (and the US actually agrees to let EU people
in).

One of the things Plumbers is thinking of is having a meetup at what
was OSS EU but which is now in Seattle.  The Maintainer's summit could
do the same thing.  We couldn't actually hold Plumbers in Seattle
because the hotels still had masks and distancing requirements for
events that effectively precluded the collaborative aspects of
microconferences, but evening events will be governed by local
protocols, rather than the Hotel, which are already more relaxed.

Umm.  Let's remember that the vaccines are 33-93% effective [1],
which means that there's approximately a 100% certainty that at least
one person arriving at the event from a trans-atlantic flight has been
exposed to someone who has the virus.  I'm not convinced that holding a
"more relaxed protocol" event is a great idea.

Not to mention the fact that this would exclude everyone from parts of
the world that do not have a high vaccine coverage or a cosy "air
bridge" type relationship with the US (whatever that means); aren't we
supposed to be an international community? :/

-Toke

On Fri, 2021-05-28 at 18:31 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 08:27:44AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:

[...]

quoted

Well, I'm not going to get into a debate over the effectiveness of
the current vaccines.  I will say that all conferences have to now
recognize that a sizeable proportion of former attendees will have
fears about travelling and therefore remote components are going to
be a fixture of conferences going forward.

However, while we should accommodate them, we can't let these fears
override people willing to take the risk and meet in person.

The interesting question is how we'll make sure that those people
will not be de facto excluded from the community, or end up as
second-class citizens.

Before the pandemic, there was a small contingent who refused to fly
for various reasons.  We did sort of accommodate that by rotating the
conference to Europe where more people could come in by train (like
they did in Lisbon) but we didn't govern the whole conference by trying
to make aerophobes first class citizens.

The bottom line is that as long as enough people are willing to meet in
person and in-person delivers more value that remote (even though we'll
try to make remote as valuable as possible) we should do it.   We
should not handicap the desires of the one group by the fears of the
other because that's a false equality ... it's reducing everyone to the
level of the lowest common denominator rather than trying to elevate
people.

James

Hi James,

On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 08:44:23AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:

On Fri, 2021-05-28 at 18:31 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

quoted

On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 08:27:44AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:

[...]

quoted

quoted

Well, I'm not going to get into a debate over the effectiveness of
the current vaccines.  I will say that all conferences have to now
recognize that a sizeable proportion of former attendees will have
fears about travelling and therefore remote components are going to
be a fixture of conferences going forward.

However, while we should accommodate them, we can't let these fears
override people willing to take the risk and meet in person.

The interesting question is how we'll make sure that those people
will not be de facto excluded from the community, or end up as
second-class citizens.

Before the pandemic, there was a small contingent who refused to fly
for various reasons.  We did sort of accommodate that by rotating the
conference to Europe where more people could come in by train (like
they did in Lisbon) but we didn't govern the whole conference by trying
to make aerophobes first class citizens.

The bottom line is that as long as enough people are willing to meet in
person and in-person delivers more value that remote (even though we'll
try to make remote as valuable as possible) we should do it.   We
should not handicap the desires of the one group by the fears of the
other because that's a false equality ... it's reducing everyone to the
level of the lowest common denominator rather than trying to elevate
people.

This should take into account the size of each group, and I believe even
then it won't be a binary decision, there's lots of variation in local
situations, creating more than just two groups of coward/careless people
(let's not debate those two words if possible, they're not meant to
insult anyway, but to emphasize that there are more categories). While I
believe that in-person meetings will become the norm again in a
reasonably near future, 2021 seems a bit premature to me.

If we want to brainstorm alternate solutions, an option could be to
split the monolithic conference location into a small set of
geographically distributed groups (assuming local travel would be easier
and generally seen as an accepted solution compared to intercontinental
travels) and link those through video conferencing. I don't have high
hopes that this would be feasible in practice given the increase in
efforts and costs to organize multiple locations in parallel, but maybe
something interesting could come out of discussing different options.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

On Fri, 2021-05-28 at 18:55 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

Hi James,

On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 08:44:23AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 2021-05-28 at 18:31 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

quoted

On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 08:27:44AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:

[...]

quoted

quoted

Well, I'm not going to get into a debate over the effectiveness
of the current vaccines.  I will say that all conferences have
to now recognize that a sizeable proportion of former attendees
will have fears about travelling and therefore remote
components are going to be a fixture of conferences going
forward.

However, while we should accommodate them, we can't let these
fears override people willing to take the risk and meet in
person.

The interesting question is how we'll make sure that those people
will not be de facto excluded from the community, or end up as
second-class citizens.

Before the pandemic, there was a small contingent who refused to
fly for various reasons.  We did sort of accommodate that by
rotating the conference to Europe where more people could come in
by train (like they did in Lisbon) but we didn't govern the whole
conference by trying to make aerophobes first class citizens.

The bottom line is that as long as enough people are willing to
meet in person and in-person delivers more value that remote (even
though we'll try to make remote as valuable as possible) we should
do it.   We should not handicap the desires of the one group by the
fears of the other because that's a false equality ... it's
reducing everyone to the level of the lowest common denominator
rather than trying to elevate people.

This should take into account the size of each group, and I believe
even then it won't be a binary decision, there's lots of variation in
local situations, creating more than just two groups of
coward/careless people (let's not debate those two words if possible,
they're not meant to insult anyway, but to emphasize that there are

3 more quoted lines

Well, this is why Plumbers and Kernel Summit are fully virtual for this
year, so you won't miss any content.  The idea of meetups is just to
test the water for restarting the social side.  In 2021 it's
necessarily going to be governed by which country is on which other
country's friends list, but hopefully that won't be the case in 2022.

If we want to brainstorm alternate solutions, an option could be to
split the monolithic conference location into a small set of
geographically distributed groups (assuming local travel would be
easier and generally seen as an accepted solution compared to
intercontinental travels) and link those through video conferencing.
I don't have high hopes that this would be feasible in practice given
the increase in efforts and costs to organize multiple locations in
parallel, but maybe something interesting could come out of
discussing different options.

Remember, remote isn't always the best solution either.  We got
complaints last year that we were disadvantaging people without high
speed internet by using video (i.e. large swathes of Africa and Asia). 
In a physical conference we can try to counteract this disadvantage by
offering attendance sponsorship, but I can't sponsor a fibre connection
on a continental scale.  I think we need to feel our way here, and
trying out meetups for size (which are traditionally more
geographically local) could be one way to do this.

James

Hi James,

On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 09:04:29AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:

On Fri, 2021-05-28 at 18:55 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

quoted

On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 08:44:23AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 2021-05-28 at 18:31 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

quoted

On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 08:27:44AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:

[...]

quoted

quoted

Well, I'm not going to get into a debate over the effectiveness
of the current vaccines.  I will say that all conferences have
to now recognize that a sizeable proportion of former attendees
will have fears about travelling and therefore remote
components are going to be a fixture of conferences going
forward.

However, while we should accommodate them, we can't let these
fears override people willing to take the risk and meet in
person.

The interesting question is how we'll make sure that those people
will not be de facto excluded from the community, or end up as
second-class citizens.

Before the pandemic, there was a small contingent who refused to
fly for various reasons.  We did sort of accommodate that by
rotating the conference to Europe where more people could come in
by train (like they did in Lisbon) but we didn't govern the whole
conference by trying to make aerophobes first class citizens.

The bottom line is that as long as enough people are willing to
meet in person and in-person delivers more value that remote (even
though we'll try to make remote as valuable as possible) we should
do it.   We should not handicap the desires of the one group by the
fears of the other because that's a false equality ... it's
reducing everyone to the level of the lowest common denominator
rather than trying to elevate people.

This should take into account the size of each group, and I believe
even then it won't be a binary decision, there's lots of variation in
local situations, creating more than just two groups of
coward/careless people (let's not debate those two words if possible,
they're not meant to insult anyway, but to emphasize that there are
more categories). While I believe that in-person meetings will become

8 more quoted lines

I seem to have misunderstood the original intent (or your intent at
least) and thought the proposal was to reconsider the virtual conference
for 2021 and go fully physical. Apologies for the misunderstanding if it
was indeed one. Dreaming of having good meals in good company again
doesn't make me bitter enough to claim that if I can't have them this
year, nobody can :-)

quoted

If we want to brainstorm alternate solutions, an option could be to
split the monolithic conference location into a small set of
geographically distributed groups (assuming local travel would be
easier and generally seen as an accepted solution compared to
intercontinental travels) and link those through video conferencing.
I don't have high hopes that this would be feasible in practice given
the increase in efforts and costs to organize multiple locations in
parallel, but maybe something interesting could come out of
discussing different options.

Remember, remote isn't always the best solution either.  We got
complaints last year that we were disadvantaging people without high
speed internet by using video (i.e. large swathes of Africa and Asia). 
In a physical conference we can try to counteract this disadvantage by
offering attendance sponsorship, but I can't sponsor a fibre connection
on a continental scale.  I think we need to feel our way here, and
trying out meetups for size (which are traditionally more
geographically local) could be one way to do this.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

On 28.05.21 16:58, James Bottomley wrote:

On Thu, 2021-05-27 at 15:29 +0200, Greg KH wrote:

quoted

On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 03:23:03PM +0200, Christoph Lameter wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 30 Apr 2021, Theodore Ts'o wrote:

quoted

I know we're all really hungry for some in-person meetups and
discussions, but at least for LPC, Kernel Summit, and
Maintainer's Summit, we're going to have to wait for another
year,

Well now that we are vaccinated: Can we still change it?

Speak for yourself, remember that Europe and other parts of the world
are not as "flush" with vaccines as the US currently is :(

The rollout is accelerating in Europe.  At least in Germany, I know
people younger than me are already vaccinated.

And I know people younger than you in Germany personally ( ;) ) that are not vaccinated yet and might not even get the first shot before September, not even dreaming about a second one + waiting until the vaccine is fully in effect.

So yes, sure, nobody can stop people that think the pandemic is over ("we are vaccinated") from meeting in person. Just make sure to not ignore the poor souls that really won't be traveling this year, because "we are not vaccinated".

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb

On Wed, 2021-06-09 at 12:37 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:

On 28.05.21 16:58, James Bottomley wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 2021-05-27 at 15:29 +0200, Greg KH wrote:

quoted

On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 03:23:03PM +0200, Christoph Lameter
wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 30 Apr 2021, Theodore Ts'o wrote:

quoted

I know we're all really hungry for some in-person meetups and
discussions, but at least for LPC, Kernel Summit, and
Maintainer's Summit, we're going to have to wait for another
year,

Well now that we are vaccinated: Can we still change it?

Speak for yourself, remember that Europe and other parts of the
world are not as "flush" with vaccines as the US currently is :(

The rollout is accelerating in Europe.  At least in Germany, I know
people younger than me are already vaccinated. 

And I know people younger than you in Germany personally ( ;) ) that
are not vaccinated yet and might not even get the first shot before 
September, not even dreaming about a second one + waiting until the 
vaccine is fully in effect.

I said "is accelerating" not "is on a par with the US and UK".

So yes, sure, nobody can stop people that think the pandemic is over 
("we are vaccinated") from meeting in person. Just make sure to not 
ignore the poor souls that really won't be traveling this year,
because "we are not vaccinated".

I realise the UK government attitude is that everyone should suffer
until we say it's over (mainly, it must be admitted, to try to keep
people from asking awkward questions about what went wrong initially)
and to some extent the EU shares that, but the US is definitely moving
to a regime that says once you're vaccinated it's pretty much over for
you and I don't see a problem with taking advantage of that for hybrid
style events.  However, even with the best will in the world, I can't
see much of a way around the problem that remote people at hybrid
events will always be at a disadvantage ... suggestions for improving
this are always welcome.

James

On 09.06.21 12:37, David Hildenbrand wrote:

On 28.05.21 16:58, James Bottomley wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 2021-05-27 at 15:29 +0200, Greg KH wrote:

quoted

On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 03:23:03PM +0200, Christoph Lameter wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 30 Apr 2021, Theodore Ts'o wrote:

quoted

I know we're all really hungry for some in-person meetups and
discussions, but at least for LPC, Kernel Summit, and
Maintainer's Summit, we're going to have to wait for another
year,

Well now that we are vaccinated: Can we still change it?

Speak for yourself, remember that Europe and other parts of the world
are not as "flush" with vaccines as the US currently is :(

The rollout is accelerating in Europe.  At least in Germany, I know
people younger than me are already vaccinated.

And I know people younger than you in Germany personally ( ;) ) that are not vaccinated yet and might not even get the first shot before September, not even dreaming about a second one + waiting until the vaccine is fully in effect.

And I know *a lot* of people who will never take part in this generic
human experiment that basically creates a new humanoid race (people
who generate and exhaust the toxic spike proteine, whose gene sequence
doesn't look quote natural). I'm one of them, as my whole family.

So yes, sure, nobody can stop people that think the pandemic is over ("we are vaccinated") from meeting in person.

Pandemic ? Did anybody look at the actual scientific data instead of
just watching corporate tv ? #faucigate


--mtx

-- 
---
Hinweis: unverschlüsselte E-Mails können leicht abgehört und manipuliert
werden ! Für eine vertrauliche Kommunikation senden Sie bitte ihren
GPG/PGP-Schlüssel zu.
---
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
Free software and Linux embedded engineering
info@metux.net -- +49-151-27565287

On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 08:07:55PM +0200, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:

On 09.06.21 12:37, David Hildenbrand wrote:

quoted

On 28.05.21 16:58, James Bottomley wrote:

*moderator hat on*

I'm requesting that all vaccine talk is restricted solely to how it would
impact international travel to/from ksummit.

-K

On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 02:23:18PM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:

On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 08:07:55PM +0200, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:

quoted

On 09.06.21 12:37, David Hildenbrand wrote:

quoted

On 28.05.21 16:58, James Bottomley wrote:

*moderator hat on*

I'm requesting that all vaccine talk is restricted solely to how it would
impact international travel to/from ksummit.

Which will largely be set by governments, travel companies and
conference venues, so there's probably very little to discuss on that
topic.

The topic of how to best organize hybrid events to maximize
inclusiveness for remote participants is more interesting to me. LPC did
an amazing job last year with the fully remote setup, but a hybrid setup
brings new challenges. One issue I've previously experienced in hybrid
setups, especially for brainstorming-type discussions, was that on-site
attendees can very quickly break out conversations in small groups (it's
an issue for fully on-site events too). Session leads should be aware of
the need to ensure even more than usual that all speakers use
microphones. I don't think we need to go as far as specific training on
these topics, but emphasizing the importance of moderation would be
useful in my opinion.

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 ?

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 11:08 AM Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
[off-list ref] wrote:

And I know *a lot* of people who will never take part in this generic
human experiment that basically creates a new humanoid race (people
who generate and exhaust the toxic spike proteine, whose gene sequence
doesn't look quote natural). I'm one of them, as my whole family.

Please keep your insane and technically incorrect anti-vax comments to yourself.

You don't know what you are talking about, you don't know what mRNA
is, and you're spreading idiotic lies. Maybe you do so unwittingly,
because of bad education. Maybe you do so because you've talked to
"experts" or watched youtube videos by charlatans that don't know what
they are talking about.

But dammit, regardless of where you have gotten your mis-information
from, any Linux kernel discussion list isn't going to have your
idiotic drivel pass uncontested from me.

Vaccines have saved the lives of literally tens of millions of people.

Just for your edification in case you are actually willing to be
educated: mRNA doesn't change your genetic sequence in any way. It is
the exact same intermediate - and temporary - kind of material that
your cells generate internally all the time as part of your normal
cell processes, and all that the mRNA vaccines do is to add a dose
their own specialized sequence that then makes your normal cell
machinery generate that spike protein so that your body learns how to
recognize it.

The half-life of mRNA is a few hours. Any injected mRNA will be all
gone from your body in a day or two. It doesn't change anything
long-term, except for that natural "your body now knows how to
recognize and fight off a new foreign protein" (which then tends to
fade over time too, but lasts a lot longer than a few days). And yes,
while your body learns to fight off that foreign material, you may
feel like shit for a while. That's normal, and it's your natural
response to your cells spending resources on learning how to deal with
the new threat.

And of the vaccines, the mRNA ones are the most modern, and the most
targeted - exactly because they do *not* need to have any of the other
genetic material that you traditionally have in a vaccine (ie no need
for basically the whole - if weakened - bacterial or virus genetic
material). So the mRNA vaccines actually have *less* of that foreign
material in them than traditional vaccines do. And  a *lot* less than

31 more lines

On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 21:39:49 +0300
Laurent Pinchart [off-list ref] 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

On 6/10/21 1:26 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 21:39:49 +0300
Laurent Pinchart [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

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.

thanks,
-- Shuah

On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 13:55:23 -0600
Shuah Khan [off-list ref] wrote:

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.

I have no problem with the above suggestion, and I envision that this
may be the norm going forward. What is still missing is the
interactions of the hallway track and the evening events. I was
thinking about how we could get the remote folks in on what happened
there right afterward, which is why I'm suggesting breakout rooms like
Laurent suggested as well, but at the end of the conference, and
perhaps the conversations of the previous night could continue with a
remote presence.

-- Steve

On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 04:02:46PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 13:55:23 -0600
Shuah Khan [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

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.

I have no problem with the above suggestion, and I envision that this
may be the norm going forward. What is still missing is the
interactions of the hallway track and the evening events. I was
thinking about how we could get the remote folks in on what happened
there right afterward, which is why I'm suggesting breakout rooms like
Laurent suggested as well, but at the end of the conference, and
perhaps the conversations of the previous night could continue with a
remote presence.

It's relatively common for in-person attendees at conferences to
use instant messaging platforms (whether it be IRC, twitter, Slack or
something else) to share their opinion on something the speaker just said
in a rather less disruptive way than shouting out in the middle of a talk.
If you sit at the back of a talk, most attendees have their laptops open
and at least one chat program running.

Perhaps we could actually _enhance_ conferences by forbidding
direct audience questions and having a moderator select questions /
"more of a comment actually" from an official live chat platform to
engage the speaker directly on stage.  It would segue naturally into
"the speaker is now done with their presentation and here's some good
followup discussion".  So many times people have come up to me after
a presentation and asked a question that I really wish I could have
answered for everybody there.

On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 21:20:50 +0100
Matthew Wilcox [off-list ref] wrote:

Perhaps we could actually _enhance_ conferences by forbidding
direct audience questions and having a moderator select questions /
"more of a comment actually" from an official live chat platform to
engage the speaker directly on stage.  It would segue naturally into
"the speaker is now done with their presentation and here's some good
followup discussion".  So many times people have come up to me after
a presentation and asked a question that I really wish I could have
answered for everybody there.

For presentations, I think this is a very good idea. But it wouldn't
work for a BoF or a microconference.

I also thought about doing this for a presentations. That is, "Please
submit all questions online, and the presenter will answer them".

Of course, if you have someone that didn't bring their laptop or phone
(there are people that do that too). They should have a way to submit a
question as well. Perhaps instead of going in line to a microphone, go
in line to a public laptop to type in your question.

-- Steve

Shuah Khan [off-list ref] writes:

On 6/10/21 1:26 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 21:39:49 +0300
Laurent Pinchart [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

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.

5 more quoted lines

This is basically how IETF meetings function: At the beginning of every
session, a volunteer "jabber scribe" is selected to watch the chat and
relay any questions to a microphone in the room. And the video streaming
platform has a "virtual queue" that remove participants can enter and
the session chairs are then responsible for giving people a chance to
speak. Works reasonably well, I'd say :)

-Toke

On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 12:43:05AM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:

Shuah Khan [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

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.

This is basically how IETF meetings function: At the beginning of every
session, a volunteer "jabber scribe" is selected to watch the chat and
relay any questions to a microphone in the room. And the video streaming
platform has a "virtual queue" that remove participants can enter and
the session chairs are then responsible for giving people a chance to
speak. Works reasonably well, I'd say :)

I was about to say the same. In addition, local participants line up
at a microphone and do not interrupt the speaker, but the organiser
gives them the signal to ask a question. This allows to maintain a
good balance between local and remote participants. Also it's common
to see some locals go back to their seat because someone else just
asked the same question. And when remote questions are asked using
pure text, it's easy for the organiser to skip them if already
responded as well.

This method is rather efficient because it doesn't require to keep the
questions for the end of the session, yet questions do not interrupt
the speaker. It also solves the problem of people not speaking in the
microphone. The only thing is that it can be quite intimidating for
local participants who are too shy of standing up in front of a
microphone and everyone else.

Just my two cents,
Willy

Em Fri, 11 Jun 2021 04:59:42 +0200
Willy Tarreau [off-list ref] escreveu:

On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 12:43:05AM +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:

quoted

Shuah Khan [off-list ref] writes:  

quoted

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.  

This is basically how IETF meetings function: At the beginning of every
session, a volunteer "jabber scribe" is selected to watch the chat and
relay any questions to a microphone in the room. And the video streaming
platform has a "virtual queue" that remove participants can enter and
the session chairs are then responsible for giving people a chance to
speak. Works reasonably well, I'd say :)  

I was about to say the same. In addition, local participants line up
at a microphone and do not interrupt the speaker, but the organiser
gives them the signal to ask a question. This allows to maintain a
good balance between local and remote participants. Also it's common
to see some locals go back to their seat because someone else just
asked the same question. And when remote questions are asked using
pure text, it's easy for the organiser to skip them if already
responded as well.

This method is rather efficient because it doesn't require to keep the
questions for the end of the session, yet questions do not interrupt
the speaker. It also solves the problem of people not speaking in the
microphone. The only thing is that it can be quite intimidating for
local participants who are too shy of standing up in front of a
microphone and everyone else.

If someone is shy, he/she could simply type the question as a
remote participant would do.

This should work fine for a normal speech, but for BoFs and the
usual "round table" discussions we have at Kernel Maintainers,
this may not work well for local participants.

I guess that, for such kind of discussions, I can see two
possible alternatives:

1. everyone would use their laptop cameras/mics;
2. every round table would have their on camera/mic set.

(1) is probably simpler to implement, but may provide a worse
experience for local participants. (2) is probably harder to
implement, as the usual conference logistics company may not
have cameras.

In either case, a moderator (or some moderating software) is needed
in order queue requests for speech. So, basically, when someone
(either in a table or remote) wants to speak, it adds its name to
a queue, which will then be parsed at the queue's order. This is not
as natural as a physical meeting, but I guess it won't bring too
much burden to local people.

Thanks,
Mauro

On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 11:13:07AM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:

quoted

The only thing is that it can be quite intimidating for
local participants who are too shy of standing up in front of a
microphone and everyone else.

If someone is shy, he/she could simply type the question as a
remote participant would do.

+1

This should work fine for a normal speech, but for BoFs and the
usual "round table" discussions we have at Kernel Maintainers,
this may not work well for local participants.

Indeed but for this one the problem is the same with those who are
not much at ease with oral english. It's difficult to insert oneself
into a discussion flow between multiple people speaking fast and
naturally understanding what they're saying without having to think.
So this situation is not new, and actually this ability to interact
quickly is what makes such events profitable to a group, even if not
everyone can participate at the same level.

In such a case, it's the moderator's job to observe that some people
want to say something and probably need a second or two of silence and
concentration first. And this works both for local and remote ones.

Willy

On 09.06.21 21:23, James Bottomley wrote:

but the US is definitely moving
to a regime that says once you're vaccinated it's pretty much over for

As far as I see (watching from the other side of the globe), for most
states it already is over, no matter whether somebody got a shot or not.
(actually, getting reports of people *with* the shot get increasing
trouble, eg. kept out of stores, schools, planes, ...).

FL and TX seem to be the most relaxed states in this regard.
Maybe ask DeStantis and Abbot whether they'd support such a conference
in their states, maybe they'd even open their cheque books ;-)

you and I don't see a problem with taking advantage of that for hybrid
style events.  However, even with the best will in the world, I can't
see much of a way around the problem that remote people at hybrid
events will always be at a disadvantage ... suggestions for improving
this are always welcome.

Looking from a totally different angle, I believe the hybrid approach
could even be a benefit. For example, longer talks - IMHO - are easier
to do (and for the audience) when just recorded, so people can listen to
them any time (and as often one wants to). Spontanous questions right
after, I guess, are only helpful for a small minority that's already deep in that particular topic - in those cases I'd prefer a more personal conversation. Another scenario are expert working groups, where
people already involved into certain topic talk closely - IMHO something
where direct (group) calls are a good medium, and probably working
better outside the strict time frames of such an event.

Maybe it's good idea to jump back to square one and ask the question,
what people actually expect from and try to achieve from such an event,
before going into some actual planning. (I could only express my very
personal view, but that's probably far from being representative)


--mtx

-- 
---
Hinweis: unverschlüsselte E-Mails können leicht abgehört und manipuliert
werden ! Für eine vertrauliche Kommunikation senden Sie bitte ihren
GPG/PGP-Schlüssel zu.
---
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
Free software and Linux embedded engineering
info@metux.net -- +49-151-27565287

Matthew Wilcox [off-list ref] wrote:

Umm.  Let's remember that the vaccines are 33-93% effective [1],
which means that there's approximately a 100% certainty that at least
one person arriving at the event from a trans-atlantic flight has been
exposed to someone who has the virus.  I'm not convinced that holding a
"more relaxed protocol" event is a great idea.

One thing that concerns me about flying to the US is going through multiple
busy international airports - take Heathrow which didn't separate incoming
travellers from red-listed countries from those of amber- or green- until like
a week ago.

Would it be practical/economical to charter a plane to fly, say, from a less
busy airport in Europe to a less busy airport in the US and back again if we
could get enough delegates together to make it worthwhile?

Chartering seems to be costed on miles flown rather than passenger count, but
I've only looked into it very briefly.

David

On 11.06.21 13:10, David Howells wrote:

One thing that concerns me about flying to the US is going through multiple
busy international airports - take Heathrow which didn't separate incoming
travellers from red-listed countries from those of amber- or green- until like
a week ago.

Would it be practical/economical to charter a plane to fly, say, from a less
busy airport in Europe to a less busy airport in the US and back again if we
could get enough delegates together to make it worthwhile?

Wouldn't just taking prophylatic meds like CDS or HCQ and/or hi-dose
vitamins (C, D3+K2) be way more cost effective and flexible than to
charter a whole plane ?

Don't have personal experience w/ HCQ yet, but CDS is pretty cheap and
easy to use (prescription free). Of course, one should dig a bit into
the specialist literature, before playing around - and take a few days
for finding the right personal dose. especially when one's cumbered w/ parasites (herxheimer)


--mtx

-- 
---
Hinweis: unverschlüsselte E-Mails können leicht abgehört und manipuliert
werden ! Für eine vertrauliche Kommunikation senden Sie bitte ihren
GPG/PGP-Schlüssel zu.
---
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
Free software and Linux embedded engineering
info@metux.net -- +49-151-27565287

On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 08:23:55PM +0200, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:

On 11.06.21 13:10, David Howells wrote:

quoted

One thing that concerns me about flying to the US is going through multiple
busy international airports - take Heathrow which didn't separate incoming
travellers from red-listed countries from those of amber- or green- until like
a week ago.

Would it be practical/economical to charter a plane to fly, say, from a less
busy airport in Europe to a less busy airport in the US and back again if we
could get enough delegates together to make it worthwhile?

Wouldn't just taking prophylatic meds like CDS or HCQ and/or hi-dose
vitamins (C, D3+K2) be way more cost effective and flexible than to
charter a whole plane ?

Why don't you just shine a bright light up your arse?  It'll have the
same effect.

On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 07:30:00PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:

quoted

Wouldn't just taking prophylatic meds like CDS or HCQ and/or hi-dose
vitamins (C, D3+K2) be way more cost effective and flexible than to
charter a whole plane ?

Why don't you just shine a bright light up your arse?  It'll have the
same effect.

Please stop.

I do not have ability to ban people across all cc'd lists, but I will for sure
start adding people to block filters on the infra to which I have access if
this wildly off-topic discussion continues and especially if things continue
to deteriorate into name-calling.

-K

On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 07:30:00PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:

On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 08:23:55PM +0200, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:

quoted

On 11.06.21 13:10, David Howells wrote:

quoted

One thing that concerns me about flying to the US is going through multiple
busy international airports - take Heathrow which didn't separate incoming
travellers from red-listed countries from those of amber- or green- until like
a week ago.

Would it be practical/economical to charter a plane to fly, say, from a less
busy airport in Europe to a less busy airport in the US and back again if we
could get enough delegates together to make it worthwhile?

Wouldn't just taking prophylatic meds like CDS or HCQ and/or hi-dose
vitamins (C, D3+K2) be way more cost effective and flexible than to
charter a whole plane ?

Why don't you just shine a bright light up your arse?  It'll have the
same effect.

Could we please, as requested early on by Konstantin, restrict
COVID19-related discussions on this mailing list solely to how it would
impact travel to/from the conference ?

For those who want to debate the merits of various medicines, feel free
to create your own mailing list, or an IRC channel on Freenode.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

On 09.06.21 12:37, David Hildenbrand wrote:

Just make sure to not
ignore the poor souls that really won't be traveling this year, because
"we are not vaccinated".

That's NOT correct.

People can't travel freely because OPPRESSIVE regimes all around the
world forbid traveling freely - and enforcing that with brute force.

Last year, i've been gunpointed by a cop just for walking over a market
place in Nuremberg with my family, wearing a shirt with some Tucholsky
quote and having my hands in the pants pockets !

It is NOT the unvaxed who are stopping anybody from travel - it is
nobody else than the GOVERMENT and its compliant abettors.

US americans should remind themselves of the 2nd amendment.


--mtx

-- 
---
Hinweis: unverschlüsselte E-Mails können leicht abgehört und manipuliert
werden ! Für eine vertrauliche Kommunikation senden Sie bitte ihren
GPG/PGP-Schlüssel zu.
---
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
Free software and Linux embedded engineering
info@metux.net -- +49-151-27565287

Hi Shuah,

On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 01:55:23PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:

On 6/10/21 1:26 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 21:39:49 +0300 Laurent Pinchart wrote:

quoted

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

4 more quoted lines

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.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 15:34:19 +0200
"Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" [off-list ref] wrote:

US americans should remind themselves of the 2nd amendment.

This is not the place to have this discussion. Please stop.

You are an active kernel developer, you should know better. Continuing this
line of conversation will only guarantee that you will be placed in the
/dev/null folder of many developers procmailrc filters.

You will be for me, if you decide to continue this.

-- Steve

On Fri, 2021-06-18 at 16:46 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

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.

Plumbers has been pretty good at that.  Even before remote
participation, if people don't speak into the mic, it's not captured on
the recording, so we've spent ages developing protocols for this. 
Mostly centred around having someone in the room to remind everyone to
speak into the mic and easily throwable padded mic boxes.  Ironically,
this is the detail that meant we couldn't hold Plumbers in person under
the current hotel protocols ... the mic needs sanitizing after each
throw.

James

On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 07:11:44 -0700
James Bottomley [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, 2021-06-18 at 16:46 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

quoted

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.  

Plumbers has been pretty good at that.  Even before remote
participation, if people don't speak into the mic, it's not captured on
the recording, so we've spent ages developing protocols for this. 
Mostly centred around having someone in the room to remind everyone to
speak into the mic and easily throwable padded mic boxes.  Ironically,
this is the detail that meant we couldn't hold Plumbers in person under
the current hotel protocols ... the mic needs sanitizing after each
throw.

Plumbers also has the advantage of having a throwable mic. And not just
one of them, we have two and a normal mic as well as a lavalier mic.

Having someone running around the audience passing the mic is not very
efficient, and having to get up and stand at a microphone, may be too
intimidating for some.

-- Steve

On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 4:11 PM James Bottomley
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, 2021-06-18 at 16:46 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

quoted

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.

Plumbers has been pretty good at that.  Even before remote
participation, if people don't speak into the mic, it's not captured on
the recording, so we've spent ages developing protocols for this.
Mostly centred around having someone in the room to remind everyone to
speak into the mic and easily throwable padded mic boxes.  Ironically,
this is the detail that meant we couldn't hold Plumbers in person under
the current hotel protocols ... the mic needs sanitizing after each
throw.

What about letting people use the personal mic they're already
carrying, i.e. a phone?

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 16:28:02 +0200
Geert Uytterhoeven [off-list ref] wrote:

What about letting people use the personal mic they're already
carrying, i.e. a phone?

Interesting idea.

I wonder how well that would work in practice. Are all phones good
enough to prevent echo?

It is something that needs to be tested out first before making it
officially used.

-- Steve

On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 10:32:14AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 16:28:02 +0200 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

quoted

What about letting people use the personal mic they're already
carrying, i.e. a phone?

Interesting idea.

I wonder how well that would work in practice. Are all phones good
enough to prevent echo?

That could be solved by isolating attendees in different rooms. That way
people could even attend remotely. Oh, wait... :-)

It is something that needs to be tested out first before making it
officially used.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

On Fri, 2021-06-18 at 16:28 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 4:11 PM James Bottomley
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 2021-06-18 at 16:46 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

quoted

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.

Plumbers has been pretty good at that.  Even before remote
participation, if people don't speak into the mic, it's not
captured on the recording, so we've spent ages developing protocols
for this. Mostly centred around having someone in the room to
remind everyone to speak into the mic and easily throwable padded
mic boxes.  Ironically, this is the detail that meant we couldn't
hold Plumbers in person under the current hotel protocols ... the
mic needs sanitizing after each throw.

What about letting people use the personal mic they're already
carrying, i.e. a phone?

Well, you can already in our hybrid plan:  BBB works on a phone as a
web app, so you'd appear in the conference as a remote attendee even
though you're sitting in the room.  However, not everyone's phone will
run the app, so we still need the throwable solution.

The main problem with using this method is that you're going to have to
mute the phone speaker output to prevent audio feedback, but I'm sure
we'll only get that wrong a few times before people work it out ...

James

Hi Steven,

On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 4:32 PM Steven Rostedt [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 16:28:02 +0200
Geert Uytterhoeven [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

What about letting people use the personal mic they're already
carrying, i.e. a phone?

Interesting idea.

I wonder how well that would work in practice. Are all phones good
enough to prevent echo?

I deliberately didn't say anything about a speaker ;-)

Just use the mic, with a simple (web) app only doing audio input?

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 04:58:08PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

Hi Steven,

On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 4:32 PM Steven Rostedt [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 16:28:02 +0200
Geert Uytterhoeven [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

What about letting people use the personal mic they're already
carrying, i.e. a phone?

Interesting idea.

I wonder how well that would work in practice. Are all phones good
enough to prevent echo?

I deliberately didn't say anything about a speaker ;-)

There's usually a speaker in the room so everyone can hear the question
...

On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 16:14:26 +0100
Matthew Wilcox [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

I deliberately didn't say anything about a speaker ;-)  

There's usually a speaker in the room so everyone can hear the question
...

Right, that's what I was thinking. Not the phone having a speaker, but
the room having one. Otherwise, remote attendees wont be able to
participate.

-- Steve

On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 5:15 PM Matthew Wilcox [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 04:58:08PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 4:32 PM Steven Rostedt [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 16:28:02 +0200
Geert Uytterhoeven [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

What about letting people use the personal mic they're already
carrying, i.e. a phone?

Interesting idea.

I wonder how well that would work in practice. Are all phones good
enough to prevent echo?

I deliberately didn't say anything about a speaker ;-)

There's usually a speaker in the room so everyone can hear the question
...

Oh IC.  I meant that not using the speaker on the phone, there cannot
be any feedback from the phone speaker to the phone mic.

W.r.t. the other speaker in the room, isn't that similar to the normal mic,
and can't that be handled at the receiving side?
There will be a bit more delay involved, though.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 17:29:04 +0200
Geert Uytterhoeven [off-list ref] wrote:

W.r.t. the other speaker in the room, isn't that similar to the normal mic,
and can't that be handled at the receiving side?
There will be a bit more delay involved, though.

How many times have you been in a conference where the normal mic and
speaker caused a nasty feedback loop?

I'm not sure how well phone mics and room speakers will work.

-- Steve

On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 11:34:52 -0400
Steven Rostedt [off-list ref] wrote:

How many times have you been in a conference where the normal mic and
speaker caused a nasty feedback loop?

I'm not sure how well phone mics and room speakers will work.

BTW, Don't take these criticisms as a rejection of your idea. I
actually like the idea. But to implement it, we need to go through all
the scenarios that will likely go wrong, if we want it to work.

-- Steve

On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 10:32:14AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 16:28:02 +0200
Geert Uytterhoeven [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

What about letting people use the personal mic they're already
carrying, i.e. a phone?

Interesting idea.

I wonder how well that would work in practice. Are all phones good
enough to prevent echo?

Unless you get the latency for the WebRTC<->in room speaker down lower
than I'd expect it to be I'd expect echo cancellation to have fun,
though beam forming might reject a lot of in room noise including that -
higher end modern phones are astonishingly good at this stuff.  I'd not
trust it to work reliably for all attendees though, it's the sort of
thing where you'll get lots of per device variation.

Em Fri, 18 Jun 2021 11:34:52 -0400
Steven Rostedt [off-list ref] escreveu:

On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 17:29:04 +0200
Geert Uytterhoeven [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

W.r.t. the other speaker in the room, isn't that similar to the normal mic,
and can't that be handled at the receiving side?
There will be a bit more delay involved, though.  

How many times have you been in a conference where the normal mic and
speaker caused a nasty feedback loop?

I never used, but there are some devices that can work as automatic feedback 
suppressors. They basically detect a feedback loop and add notch filter(s) to
the frequency(ies) that are looping. Some high-end digital mixers have this
feature embedded (but the operator may need to enable it).

Yet, you may still hear the feedback loop while the algorithm is detecting 
and correcting the issue, as it takes 100 ms to 400ms to detect and filter
a single feedback frequency.

I'm not sure how well phone mics and room speakers will work.

I guess that this depends on how the environment is setup. A good
digital mixer can be set with a gate threshold. If the volume is below
the threshold, the mic will be muted. 

They can also be setup to have just one microphone group, where only
one microphone will have the volume raised on a given time. So, if
someone speaks on a mic, all the others are muted or attenuated.

Yet, I guess this is not the usual "package" provided by hotels.
Those setups may require extra devices and technical people that
knows now to use such features.

Thanks,
Mauro

Em Fri, 18 Jun 2021 16:58:29 +0100
Mark Brown [off-list ref] escreveu:

On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 10:32:14AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 16:28:02 +0200
Geert Uytterhoeven [off-list ref] wrote:  

quoted

quoted

What about letting people use the personal mic they're already
carrying, i.e. a phone?  

quoted

Interesting idea.  

quoted

I wonder how well that would work in practice. Are all phones good
enough to prevent echo?  

Unless you get the latency for the WebRTC<->in room speaker down lower
than I'd expect it to be I'd expect echo cancellation to have fun,
though beam forming might reject a lot of in room noise including that -
higher end modern phones are astonishingly good at this stuff.  I'd not
trust it to work reliably for all attendees though, it's the sort of
thing where you'll get lots of per device variation.

The local audience should be listening to the in-room audio, in order
to avoid echo. Also, all local mics should be muted, if someone is 
speaking from a remote location. 

Yet, echo is unavoidable if a remote participant is speaking while 
listening to the audio without headphones. If this ever happens, I
guess the moderator should cut the remote audio and ask the remote
participant to lower their speakers or use a headphone.


Thanks,
Mauro

On 6/18/21 7:46 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

Hi Shuah,

On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 01:55:23PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:

quoted

On 6/10/21 1:26 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 21:39:49 +0300 Laurent Pinchart wrote:

quoted

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.

23 more quoted lines

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.

thanks,
-- Shuah

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:

quoted

On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 01:55:23PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:

quoted

On 6/10/21 1:26 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 21:39:49 +0300 Laurent Pinchart wrote:

quoted

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

45 more quoted lines

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

On 6/22/21 4:59 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

Hi Shuah,

On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 04:33:22PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:

quoted

On 6/18/21 7:46 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 01:55:23PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:

quoted

On 6/10/21 1:26 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 21:39:49 +0300 Laurent Pinchart wrote:

quoted

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

54 more quoted lines

Correct. It will be impossible to participate and moderate in workshop
setting. We have to ask for volunteers and nominate moderators ahead of
time.

thanks,
-- Shuah

On 6/22/21 5:33 PM, Shuah Khan wrote:

On 6/22/21 4:59 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

quoted

Hi Shuah,

On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 04:33:22PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:

quoted

On 6/18/21 7:46 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 01:55:23PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:

quoted

On 6/10/21 1:26 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 21:39:49 +0300 Laurent Pinchart wrote:

quoted

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

60 more quoted lines

Subsystems could seek volunteers from other subsystems perhaps ...

thanks,
-- Shuah

On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 05:57:11PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:

On 6/22/21 5:33 PM, Shuah Khan wrote:

quoted

On 6/22/21 4:59 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 04:33:22PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:

quoted

On 6/18/21 7:46 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 01:55:23PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:

quoted

On 6/10/21 1:26 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 21:39:49 +0300 Laurent Pinchart wrote:

quoted

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

58 more quoted lines

That's a good idea, and it's a great way to learn about other parts of
the kernel (or other open-source projects). This would need to be taken
into account when scheduling workshops though. I'd like to also propose
giving official recognition of the important role of moderators, for
instance by extending the speaker's gift scheme to moderators (no
personal interest here as I won't attend the conference in person and
thus can't be a moderator, and it's an easy to make suggestion for me as
I don't manage conference budgets :-)).

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 17:57:11 -0600
Shuah Khan [off-list ref] wrote:

 Correct. It will be impossible to participate and moderate in workshop

quoted

setting. We have to ask for volunteers and nominate moderators ahead of
time.
  

Subsystems could seek volunteers from other subsystems perhaps ...

Right, this is exactly what I was thinking. I could moderate a GPU
subsystem, and even though I'm know for speaking, I would keep my mouth
shut for such a session, as I'm totally clueless when it comes to the
GPU subsystem ;-)

-- Steve