On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Adrian Farrel
<adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> 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* local participants, but who are not in the room where the meeting is
taking place. A number of people attempt to follow multiple parallel meetings
using jabber and/or headphones. For them, speaking participation usually
requires someone to channel over jabber, or a sprint between rooms.
Such participants, like remote participants, would benefit from having the
projector streamed as well as audio.
In Section 2:
"Bar BoFs at regular IETF meetings are not listed above
because they mostly happen in places where remote participation can't
be scheduled."
Aren't Bar BoFs informal? There are also BoFs and "side-meetings"
(draft-eggert-successful-bar-bof-06).
Yes. Please do not make *any* provisions for remote participation at side
meetings. If the organisers want to arrange that sort of thing they can put
their mobile phone on the bar!
In Section 3.3:
"This method of participation often works adequately, but there are
many places where it fails."
The problem is the audio delay. Even if the delay was a few seconds
only, that would still happen as it is difficult to manage the
in-room discussion and remote participation at the same time.
I have found that the audio delay builds. Disconnecting and reconnecting to
the
meeting catches you up.
In Section 4.1.2:
"Remote attendees who are speaking over the
audio must be visible to the local attendees."
That's not a good idea if the remote participant is many time zones away. :-)
It is also not a requirement and may be impractical on low b/w links.
Should I send a short video of me typing this email?
In this context "seeing" and "visible" are frequently used to mean that the
fact of participation is visible, not that they are "on screen," and
that is how I interpreted
the above.
For example, WebEx and similar services show you who has joined the
meeting, and who of that list
is speaking, but not (as generally used in the IETF) a video feed. So,
you do get to see who's speaking, even
if you can't see them on screen.
Also, other remote attendees should see this too.
So, how about
"At a minimum the email addresses of remote attendees who are
speaking over the
audio must be visible to the local and remote attendees."
I say email addresses should be required because
- you have to give an email address to join any WG mail list and
- we do not require a mapping of email addresses to legal names on WG
mail lists so
- this would allow for exactly the same amount of identification and
privacy as on WG mail lists.
Also, I suggest that we use the phrase "on video" or "on screen" to
make it clear when that is specifically intended. And, on that
subject, can we have a glossary in this document to describe such
specialized jargon, as there is a bunch ?
Regards
Marshall
Cheers,
Adrian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf