Guys,
Sorry for the top post. (Running out the door!)
There were a number of volunteers in the Chicago IETF to help revise / recreate
from scratch a remote hubs draft. I was busy with other tasks but will get
this going next week.
If anyone else would like to volunteer to help, pls let me know. I have a
feeling that we will end up doing virtual group work meetings every two weeks
to get / review input.
Thanks,
Nalini Elkins
CEO and Founder
Inside Products, Inc.
www.insidethestack.com
(831) 659-8360
--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 4/14/17, Fernando Gont <fgont(_at_)si6networks(_dot_)com> wrote:
Subject: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities
To: dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net, "IETF" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Date: Friday, April 14, 2017, 9:32 AM
On 04/14/2017 05:11 PM, Dave
Crocker wrote:
On 4/14/2017 9:04 AM,
Fernando Gont wrote:
FWIW, for the
developing world, remote participation has possibly
always
been a necessity.
Indeed. I hadn't understood how
extensive this had become until seeing:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-elkins-ietf-remote-hubs-00#section-3
I haven't checked the I-D.
However, no matter what it says, there's
remote participation with meet echo, without
hubs. For instance, I
participated (and
presented) remotely in two wgs during the Chicago
IETF, without "attending" any hub.
However, there is a significant difference
between their current mode of
integration with the 'main' venue site, versus what
we will need to have
remote sites able
to have nearly seamless participation in sessions.
What I tried to note is that
the situation for part of the participants
is such that remote participation is already
necessary.
From the pov
of participants of North America or Europe, this *might*
be
different and the current situation might
be a game changer. But for us
in latin
maerica, remote participation has always been a need, even
if
we managed to attend one or more meetings
(that's kind of like "the
exception
to the rule").
Some of this is functional, such as a
single queue for everyone wanting
to
speak, no matter where they are.
Agreed.
Some of this is much more robust
performance and reliability (within
obvious networking limitations.)
I suspect the easiest bit will be improved
usability design, since the
Meetecho
folk tend to start with reasonable design and make
improvements
quickly, as experience is
gained. But yes, from some comments over the
last two meetings, there's probably
room for that improvement.
I must say that modulo issues with the network
(which were probably
local on my side), the
experience was great, and I must say that the
meetecho folks provided "online" help
in a very timely manner (thanks!).
There's room for
improvements.. but in some cases they seem to be more
about integration of local and remote
participants, than with "bugs" in
the tools themselves. e.g., as you've
correctly noted, it would be great
if there
was a means for managing the mic queue, such that
there's a
single queue, that includes
remote participants.
Thanks!
Cheers,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6
Networks
e-mail: fgont(_at_)si6networks(_dot_)com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4
AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492