Re: CHANGE OF VENUE: Meeting tomorrow

Hello,

Since the invitation to make the meeting on Zoom was launched having the
(legitimate) concern that there might be more people in the call, wouldn't
it be an option to first see how many people are showing in a call hosted
by a tool that you like in general? You could give it a try like that and
if it does not work, you can go to Zoom, as a last resort.

The advantage would be that the specific people who wrote so far would feel
more comfortable with something different than Zoom and also it's more
aligned with their values / the message in general of AP. It might be a
surprise, but as it's possible that lots of people show up, it's also
possible that there will not be more than 10 people on the call. There is
also the aspect of minutes, so those who are not interested in
participating at that hour, they don't lose track of what happened.

I understand also that it's a bit last minute, but I see that the Zoom
invite has made some participants give up attendance solely based on what
tool is being used for the call. However, I trust participants to know
where to go - obviously if there is nobody in the call, they might check
the email thread and see that it's happening elsewhere.

What do you think about trying it out like that? To be more structured, the
proposal is:

   - 1/ meet using a tool that is agreed, to see how many are in the call;
   - 2/ if there are too many participants, move to Zoom. If not, stay in
   the original call.

Wishing you a great day ahead,

Cristina DeLisle



On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 10:14 AM Marcus Rohrmoser <me+swicg@mro.name> wrote:

> Hi Johannes, all
>
> > On 28 Mar 2023, at 19:21, Johannes Ernst wrote:
> >
> >> CHANGE OF VENUE to Zoom
>
> Hi Johannes, all
>
> > On 28 Mar 2023, at 19:21, Johannes Ernst wrote:
> >
> >> CHANGE OF VENUE to Zoom
>
> the venue change of the meeting later today is disappointing to me. Let
> me briefly elaborate.
>
> Early on, when the wish to meet formed, there was this question where.
> It seemed accepted that certain hosts are no option. An in-depth
> argument why seemed unnecessary.
>
> Now you changed exactly for the called no-go host. You did so on the
> basis of speculation concerning capability of the chosen (by you) prior
> host. Other recommendations provide hosting free for pro-bono since
> years, legal under the GDPR and for thousands of meetings with up to
> hundreds of participants. I assumed the meeting to be within that scope,
> otherwise I wouldn't take part anyway. They are no single-user,
> otherwise dormant servers but professionally operated.
>
> As Aaron put it "I don't like the part where people have to show video
> … Forced microphone is also a potential issue". I don't like being
> forced into (for good reason) illegal services, no matter how juicy they
> may be. I am quite stern about such things as is e.g. Bruce Schneier as
> well and am happy to live under GDPR jurisdiction. [1] [2] [3]
> I propagate multilateral pluralism, I have to live up to that.
>
> You didn't raise any concerns, but make a final decision and prove the
> prior announcement unreliable.
>
> Attending video meetings is no priority for me, results however are.
>
> Taking risks is inevitable to overcome mediocracy.
>
> Kind regards and I wish us all a fruitful, convival, long-term
> collaboration,
> Marcus
>
> [1]
> https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2020/04/security_and_pr_1.html
> [2]
>
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-01/zoom-settles-consumer-claims-over-privacy-for-85-million
> [3]
>
> https://www.datenschutz-berlin.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/orientierungshilfen/2020-BlnBDI-Empfehlungen_Videokonferenzsysteme.pdf
>
>