Re: Requirements for improving IETF remote participation

On 1/6/12 02:00 , SM wrote: > "The RPS tools must be available for lunch meetings scheduled by >the IETF Secretariat, such as for the Security Directorate" > > I object to the non-inclusion of the kangaroo directorate (no offense > intended). :-) That implies coverage of a much greater num

Re: Requirements for improving IETF remote participation

On Fri Jan 6 19:51:26 2012, Marshall Eubanks wrote: On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 2:22 PM, SM wrote: > At 08:48 06-01-2012, Marshall Eubanks wrote: >> >> I say email addresses should be required because > > > There are XMPP identities (JID).  That unfortunately does not map to a > participant's emai

Re: Requirements for improving IETF remote participation

On Fri Jan 6 10:00:08 2012, SM wrote: In Section 4.1.3: "The instant messaging system must allow any registered user (even those registered anonymously) to post messages in the WG's or BoF's room." Isn't the current XMPP approach workable? What is the meaning of "those registered

Re: Requirements for improving IETF remote participation

On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 2:22 PM, SM wrote: > At 07:10 06-01-2012, Adrian Farrel wrote: >> >> Not sure if I count as an "old boy" or not. Don't think I am as old as I >> feel. > > > You are not in that group.  BTW, it's not age related. > > >> Yes. Please do not make *any* provisions for remote part

RE: Requirements for improving IETF remote participation

At 07:10 06-01-2012, Adrian Farrel wrote: Not sure if I count as an "old boy" or not. Don't think I am as old as I feel. You are not in that group. BTW, it's not age related. Yes. Please do not make *any* provisions for remote participation at side meetings. If the organisers want to arrange

Re: Requirements for improving IETF remote participation

On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > SM wrote: > >> There are more than two types of participants: > > Not sure if I count as an "old boy" or not. Don't think I am as old as I feel. > > Anyway, I think it important to add to the categories of participants those > who > *are* lo

Re: Requirements for improving IETF remote participation

On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > SM wrote: > >> There are more than two types of participants: > > Not sure if I count as an "old boy" or not. Don't think I am as old as I feel. > > Anyway, I think it important to add to the categories of participants those > who > *are* lo

Re: Requirements for improving IETF remote participation

Thanks for the comments, but it would be *really* good if you took them to the vmeet mailing list: On Jan 5, 2012, at 2:05 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > The discussion of the requirements is happening on the "vmeet" mailing list; > see . You of all peop

RE: Requirements for improving IETF remote participation

SM wrote: > There are more than two types of participants: Not sure if I count as an "old boy" or not. Don't think I am as old as I feel. Anyway, I think it important to add to the categories of participants those who *are* local participants, but who are not in the room where the meeting is tak

Re: Requirements for improving IETF remote participation

On 1/5/2012 2:05 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > Greetings again. As Ray Pelletier said on this list earlier, I have been > tasked with creating a set of requirements for the IETF's remote > participation system (RPS). The first draft is now at >

Re: Requirements for improving IETF remote participation

At 14:05 05-01-2012, Paul Hoffman wrote: This first draft compiles many (but certainly not all!) of the comments I have heard so far, but I expect it to change a fair amount in the coming months. If you are active in the IETF, even if you rarely or never come to IETF meetings, your input is wel

Requirements for improving IETF remote participation

Greetings again. As Ray Pelletier said on this list earlier, I have been tasked with creating a set of requirements for the IETF's remote participation system (RPS). The first draft is now at . The discussion of the requirements is happ