At 07:38 PM 11/18/2003, Eliot Lear wrote:
I have no first-hand information on how much time this costs
"So I'll dream up what I think the right number of people should be!"
I think part of the blame should go to the access points that kept
disappearing. Someone told me this was because the AP transmitters were
set to just 1 mw. If this is true, it was obviously a very big mistake.
Oh really?! Please explain why. Your words strike me as those of a
volunteer for South Korea. Do I have that about right?
As long as we're bitching about the network: would it be possible to
start doing some unicast streaming of sessions in the future? Access to
multicast hasn't gotten significantly better the past decade, but
streaming over unicast is now routine as the codecs are so much better
these days, as is typical access bandwidth. I'll happily take 40 kbps
MPEG-4 audio only; the video is so badly out of sync that it is
unwatchable most of the time anyway.
Will you happily pay for the privilege?
I have been offering that for several years. I've stood up at Plenaries and
asked too. If the IETF needs funds, then a remote-attendance fee makes
sense. However, if there's going to be a remote-attendance fee, there needs
to be live streaming that works on networks where multicast isn't
available, and there'd need to be coverage from ALL rooms. (Yes, it'd be
nice if I could get multicast in my office, but it's just not available at
present on the only broadband provider covering my area).
Much as I'd like to make all meetings, this just isn't possible. Using only
meeting attendance fees to fund all activities, such as I-D processing,
seems wrong. I use those services, even if I don't attend all meetings. So
maybe the question is wider than meeting fees and remote attendance fees.