n af "Remote Participation Hib" would be a
place where experienced IETF participants may meet together to
"participate" in an IETF week without the current burdens of travel,
visas, etc., and invite potential IETF participants to get a taste
of what an IETF week is like.
--
John
Christian O'Flaherty wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2017, at 8:20 PM, John Leslie wrote:
>> Christian O'Flaherty wrote:
>>>
>>> Before we start working on the documents I would try to decide what
>>> do we need,
>>
>>Hard to answer that befor
e formal.
I recommend against trying "more-formal" before we settle what we're
trying to accomplish.
> Christian
Myself, I'd like to make remote-hubs more practical for folks already
familiar with on-site IETF weeks. I think that will help newcomers
as well as "
Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>
> I suggest that the IETF remove the US as a candidate for any future meetings.
That isn't a topic for
--
John Leslie
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.
ows from that region, maybe ISOC needs to be involved
> in this conversation.
If we can attract some ISOC folks, that would be great.
--
John Leslie
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html.
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
would cover most needs, if we add a dozen library
carrels.
It might well turn out that we could arrange hotel/motel close enough
that the individual carrels could fit within the rented room.
Understand that $100 out-of-pocket feels quite different than $3,0
rent! Nonetheless, cheap lodging is available almost
everywhere for folks who can clear one whole day but not two more days for
travel (not to mention uncertain entry into another country).
(Time to move on... sorry.)
--
John Leslie
___
NOTE WELL
will have to be asking friends _before_ the session starts.
> Thoughts?
The MeetEcho folks are our friends!!!
--
John Leslie
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html.
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
be helpful. And, of course, agendas _do_ change even
after the start of an IETF week...
--
John Leslie
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html.
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
g in real-time, so it no longer bothered me
to lose the slides.)
Serious debugging _during_ IETF-week really doesn't make sense;
but we ought to do it sometime...
--
John Leslie
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.
n no changes for ten minutes -- long enough for Comcast to
time-out.
Meetecho probably should include some keep-alives for ports; and IMHO
really_should notice
that a port has gone away, and recover without requiring the user to lose
half-a-minute of
audio.
Of course, YMM
at a nearby
> restaurant (British Beer Company).
I'm thinking!
> Discussion and more organization can happen on ietf-hub-bos...@ietf.org.
I don't understand where they're inviting me to, or what I might
find there.
(I would,
Hmm... Dunno what that would take.
>> {The 2013/2014 nomcom used G+ Hangouts, and we were able to use the Google
>> internal one which permitted >9 participants as we had a Google person who
>> had access to it. The 2014/2015 Nomcom tried a call or two with JITSI, but
>> the audio bridge problem was more severe}
I've had generally good experiences with G+ Hangouts -- though of course
the details change, seemingly every time I use it.
--
John Leslie
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html.
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
erely hope
this will find a resolution soon...
--
John Leslie
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html.
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
working groups that have
>> multiple sessions during a meeting week? Are there any requirements on the
>> tool (particularly around archiving) to combine these sessions into some
>> logical unit associated with the working group? How much integration with
>> the meeting s
Russ Housley wrote:
>
> 2.4.1. Video from the Room to Remote Attendees
>
> **Requirement 04-40**: Remote attendees MUST be able to see the
> presenter at a meeting. A lower-priority requirement is that remote
> attendees SHOULD be able to see who is speaking at the mics in the
> room.
>
>
remote audio.)
BTW, Google Hangout was working quite nicely (once we got it working
at all) for RTCWEB this week...
--
John Leslie
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html.
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
alled-for IMHO.)
I suggest that the jabber stream SHOULD contain the name of every
participant speaking at the microphone (or channeled). In practice,
the Jabber Scribe can't simultaneously type and speak; so someone else
would probably need to add the "channeling NN" note.
--
John Leslie
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html.
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
John C Klensin wrote:
>
> Thanks again to all for trying to make this work.
+1
--
John Leslie
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html.
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
> On Mar 20, 2012, at 1:09 PM, John Leslie wrote:
>
>> 1. Actual slides come in different software versions. Incompatibilies
>>are frequent enough that I doubt folks would want to use it.
>
> Currently, slides become part of the proceedings.
e per second would
probably suffice.
--
John Leslie
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html.
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
ere _big_ problems
when the IESG first tried WebEx.
>> Maybe we should set up a tech support email address to log failures
>> and get some statistics here.
I think a wiki would be better: that way we might gather the community
wisdom on workarou
lks to spend
enough time learning them has proven a major challenge.
Perhaps publishing some of the success stories would help?
--
John Leslie
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html.
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
Dan Wing wrote:
> [John Leslie [mailto:j...@jlc.net] wrote:]
>> Dan Wing wrote:
>>>
>>> How can we best handle both in-person and remote attendees? Remote
>>> attendees get frustrated with speakers/chairs using visual queues or
>>> pointing at slides
s or 100% remote attendees, which seems to resolve several of the
> issues.
I wouldn't want to retreat that far. We can't seem to get all the
players to physically attend IETF weeks.
Furthermore, IMHO, all-remote meetings become exhausting after about
45 minutes.
--
John Lesli
else give the presentation. A single
> disembodied voice is better than not getting the presentation at all.
I agree.
Further, I'd opine that presentations by local attendees that aren't
_very_ familiar with the work are inherently problemmatic.
I'd like to try to sta
then how is the push to talk
>implemented? *6 is used to mute yourself on some bridges.
I don't think this requirements document needs to say how.
> Requirements 1/2 seem to be already in the document.
(Is there a recommended change to the text here?)
--
John Leslie
Michael Richardson wrote:
>
>>>>>> "John" == John Leslie writes:
>>>> Scheduling of real-time meetings is out of scope for this document.
>>>> What is in scope is the understanding that since many participants
>>>> will be at
Michael Richardson wrote:
> >>>>> "John" == John Leslie writes:
>>> Part of the problem is that we waste huge amounts of our in-person time
>>> on presentations rather than conversations.
>
>> John> +100 !!
>
>> John> H
is that
> they are expensive, hard(er than PPT) to produce, and so there was
> much more conversation.
+1
> I come back to this, because central to vmeet requirements is what kind
> of meetings are we trying to support?
I disagree that that's the question.
We&
g by automobile; so IMHO
we should cover the need for adapting to backgrond sound as well as
poor bandwidth. IMHO, "not at their office" doesn't convey enough...
--
John Leslie
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.
although there needs to be
an indication of lower priority for some things it lists.
> let me pick on john for an example
No problem!
> John Leslie wrote:
>> - the audio fed to a remote participant SHOULD exclude his own voice,
>> but enable him to hear any questions ra
pdf, there is no
> animation. On webex, if you share the ppt application you get animation,
> but there is another mode in which you get a static version. I would
> list it as "nice to have".
It comes down to what we mean by "supported"... To me, the requirement
re
currently setting up an entirely virtual interim for MBONED,
> probably for early January.
I'll be interested in how it works.
(BTW, Marshall and I will probably be doing F2F+Remote for CLUE
in February, arranged by Mary Barnes -- eventually I hope CLUE will
improve on the F2F+R expe
ting time. The Meetecho site
was inadequate for introducing the tool. With more effort than I like to
admit, I got one account set up, only to learn it did nothing to help me
learn the tool.
What is needed? Dry-runs.
--
John Leslie
___
NOTE WELL:
ts.
> > If you are interested in this, please let him know.
I see the discussion on ; presumably Gonzalo means
Simon Pietro Romano
The meetecho website is disappointing -- leaves me with very little
idea how to evaluate this tool. "The spirit is willing, but the
flushed-out is weak...&
natives to keep up (as well as some _very_ good
hints on _how_ to do so).
--
John Leslie
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html.
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
stand, and how they are
> used by somebody speaking at the microphone.
I suspect others are also interested...
Myself, I have heard reference to them but I have no idea what they
actually _do_ -- and I wonder whether it's practical to copy their output
into
John Leslie wrote:
>
>I think it would be good to document remote-participation experiences
> at IETF75...
The remote audio (so far) is a pretty total bust. Muzak was coming
through pretty nicely until session start time; since then muzak alternated
with silence for a whi
but of course remote audio hasn't had the acid test yet...)
> So, we are only going to focus on the two sessions that need to support
> remote presenters.
Fair enough!
--
John Leslie
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://m
, so most folks use dial-in).
I think it would be good to document remote-participation experiences
at IETF75. What do others think?
--
John Leslie
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html.
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
Dave CROCKER wrote:
> John Leslie wrote:
>
>> Our timeframe is too short to rule out "hacks" for Stockholm. For
>> the IETF after that, we should be able to automate things.
>
> The timeframe for vmeet is whatever we set it to be.
Not meaning to contradict,
Dave CROCKER wrote:
> John Leslie wrote:
>
>> 1) Right now, a phone bridge is essentially state-of-the-art for
>> audio. Most everything else flunks Brian's 150 msec test.
>
> This raises two different questions:
>
> 1. Is passing that test really mandatory?
someone is responsible
for following-up on. (Some are group items; some private.) These
deserve far more visibility than they usually get.
5) Separate applications is very likely better than one integrated
application. Webex drives me crazy by taking over organization of
the screen. I d
.
Can we do anything to help?
--
John Leslie
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html.
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
45 matches
Mail list logo
