On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 15:11 -0700, SM wrote: > I left out the burdensome points you mentioned. I don't think there > is a solution to all of them. I avoided mentioning a second > projector for cost and also as it's one more thing to focus > on.
It is, however, something that's been tried. I do hope that some of the current and former chairs of KITTEN, KRB-WG, and SASL who are in Paris (which, unfortunately, I am not) will attend the rpsreqs BOF session on Friday afternoon and/or otherwise get in touch with Paul to share our experiences with that. > To add to what you said, the Jabber display also depends on the size > of the session. Someone remote asks whether he counts. I'm not sure what that means. Certainly remote participants should have just as much right to be heard as those who are present, and should be given just as much weight in determining whether there is a consensus. I for one consider it to be a key principle of the way the IETF carries out its work that participating in the decision process does not require physical attendance at meetings. > Melinda Shore outdid herself with > http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/wgchairs/wiki/RemoteParticipation Yes, that's a very nice job. FWIW, when I am physically present to chair a session, I normally try to verify in advance that all of the mics are present and the mix isn't too terrible. -- Jeff _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html. https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
