On Thu, 3 May 2012, Chris Morrow wrote:
I'd also (and sandy as well) would like some feedback on this
message, the meeting, and suggestions for what a direction forward
might be.
I will observe that my support for having interims was conditioned on
improving the remote participation experience[1]. I think we did not
hit the bar on Monday. In the absence of a concrete plan to make
further progress, I feel I must withdraw my support for having
interims.
Knowing one voice in opposition may not change the consensus call for
having interims, I'm still going to try to make some constructive
suggestions.
1) late start/technology fail with the webex (probably webex
operations failures more than anything - my fault)
I heard grumbling in the room in Reston re: having taken the trouble
to travel there only to be faced with a seriously delayed WG meeting.
There was talk of wandering off to another location to "get work
done". We may need to deeply consider the plan for what happens if we
fail at making the tech work in the future.
2) audio issues (occasionally the webex audio would cut out)
I believe some people were using the WebEx "integrated" audio, and the
source for that in Reston was not the speakerphone but was instead a
single laptop's built-in microphone. That audio was bad and, as you
report, would frequently just stop entirely. As best as I could tell,
the integrated audio and PSTN call were not connected, and I'm not
sure that anyone on the integrated channel could talk back to the
room.
The PSTN audio outbound from Reston was decent, though not as good as
I was hoping for.
3) local dial-in for webex-call for non-US participants
I don't recall seeing a toll-free number for the US. Such would be
helpful in the future.
I found Sandy's live notes to be very helpful. They would have been
better if I could have paged back through them on my own schedule and
if they hadn't kept trying to take control of my screen. Jabber
worked fine. For those in the room, I think having tables/desks would
be more comfortable -- I don't like having my "laptop" on my lap for
the duration of a normal WG meeting, and doing that for eight hours is
too much.
As for future suggestions re: remote participation, I refer back to my
note of 27 March:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg04288.html
I continue to believe that advance testing, delegation of the tech
issues, and providing one microphone per person will help improve the
experience. There was a suggestion on Monday to use multiple jabber
rooms: one with the (live) notes, and one for
discussion/questions/etc. Assuming we don't find a better shared
note-taking tool, I'm fine with trying that.
Video seems like it might help with integrating the remote folks,
though I have little experience doing video with large numbers of
remote participants.
-- Sam
[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg04268.html
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
