Re: procedural question with remote participation

At 12:38 PM 8/5/2013, John C Klensin wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I seem to have missed a lot of traffic since getting a few
> responses yesterday.  I think the reasons why slides should be
> available well in advance of the meeting have been covered well
> by others.  And, as others have suggested, I'm willing to see
> updates to those slides if things change in the hours leading
> up to the meeting, but strongly prefer that those updates come
> as new alides with update-type "numbers" or other
> identification rather than new decks.  In other words, if a
> deck is posted in advance with four slides numbered 1, 2, 3,
> and 4, and additional information is needed for 3, I'd prefer
> to see the updated deck consist of slides 1, 2, 3, 3a, 3b, 4 or
> 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4, rather than 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
How exactly do you do this in pptx? Numbering slides is a linear 
operation AFAICT, and it's binary (it's either on or off). Please 
educate me if I'm wrong; lord knows I don't know don't know how to do 
everything flag/setting in powerpoint...
And, in my 8 years as TSVWG chair, I've rarely had completely new 
individual slides sprinkled throughout an existing deck. Rather, I've 
received updated slides - each with part of their content altered. 
Does this fall into your desire for a "3a", or is that just "3" 
(because 3a means an entirely new slide from scratch)?
BTW - I'm very much *not* in favor of stipulating to my WG that 
slides must be turned in 7 days in advance of a TSVWG meeting. I 
personally think no more than a 48 hour advanced window should ever 
be considered.
James

> I also
> prefer consolidated decks but, if WG chairs find that too
> difficult, I'm happy to do my own consolidating if everyting is
> available enough in advance for me to do sol
>
> Almost independent of the above, the idea that one should just
> watch the slides on Meetecho implies that Meetecho is
> available in every session (it isn't) and that everything
> works.  In addition, they either need the slides in advance or
> need to be able to broadcast real-time video at a resolution
> that makes the slides readable.  The latter was not the case
> last week in some of the sessions in which Meetecho was
> transmitting the slides sometimes due in part to interesting
> speaker-training issues.
>
> The reasons to discourage anonymity aren't just "patent
> nonsense" (although that should be sufficient and I rather like
> the pun).  Despite all we say and believe about individual
> participation, the IETF has a legitimate need to understand the
> difference between comments on a specification from an audience
> with diverse perspectives and organized campaigns or a loud
> minority with a shared perspective.  That requires
> understanding whether speakers are largely independent of each
> other (versus what have sometimes been referred to as sock
> puppets for one individual) or whether they are part of an
> organization mounting a systematic campaign to get a particular
> position adopted (or not adopted).  The latter can also raise
> some rather nasty antitrust / anti-competitiveness issues.
> Clear identification of speakers, whether in the room or
> remote, can be a big help in those regards, even though it
> can't prevent all problems.  And the IETF having a policy that
> requires clear identification at least establishes that we,
> organizationally and procedurally, are opposed to nefarious,
> deceptive, and posslbly illegal behavior.
>
> A rule about having slides well in advance helps in another
> way: slides that are bad news for some reasons but posted
> several days in advance of the meeting provide opportunities
> for comments and adjustments (from WG Chairs and others).  Ones
> that are posted five minutes before (or 10 minutes after) a
> session lose that potential advantage.  Again, I don't think we
> should get rigid about it: if slides are posted in advance
> and then supplemented or revised after feedback is received,
> everyone benefits.
>
> I want to stress that, while I think registration of remote
> people who intend to participate is desirable for many reasons,
> I think trying to condition microphone use (either remote on
> in-room) with proof of registration and mapping of names would
> be looking for a lot of trouble with probably no significant
> benefits.
>
> best,
>    john