Hi Stephen,
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Stephen Farrell
<stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie>
wrote:
No major objection but a few minor comments:-
- I'd be happier if there was a re-iteration that we're not going
to charge remote folks until the remote input experience is much
better and the community have agreed to such charging.
- I think there ought be some ack that this policy (if applied)
may be tee-ing up charging remote folks, as something that might
be needed depending on how the remove/on-site ratios evolve. (It
seemed odd to me that charging was not mentioned.)
As someone who argued against mentioning registration fees when Alissa
shared a draft, you can at least partially blame me for the oddity. I
still don't think it belongs in this message, because what we face at the
moment is data so noisy that we can't tell how many people we're serving at
all nor who and where they are. Because we can't tell who we're serving,
we can't tell whether the service is fit for the purpose very easily.
If they are primarily folks in the hotel, who can't be in two rooms at
once, we have one set of issues; if they are primarily folks at the end of
low bandwidth, high RTT paths to the venue, we have a very different set of
issues. We also don't know reliably whether we have a small coterie of
very dedicated remote participants or a wide smattering of folks dipping
their toes in for a session or two.
We need that data first.
Once we have it, there may be many things in the set of ways to support the
service that come to light; since those might be fund raising from external
parties rather than charging, I don't think we ought to anticipate that
stage at this one.
Hope that makes sense,
Ted
- IIRC, there were a couple of times in the 2 meetings when I was
remote where I needed to get in to meetecho a 2nd time with a
different ID. While that particular bug may be fixed (or maybe
was on my side, not meetecho's) it'd be a shame if folks could
not do that kind of thing. I'm not sure how that'd best be handled.
Cheers,
S.
On 09/05/17 20:01, IETF Chair wrote:
For remote participants at IETF meetings, registration is currently
optional. Remote participants may join a session at an IETF meeting by
entering any name or pseudonym of their choice into the current form used
for logging in to MeetEcho.
The IESG is soliciting community feedback on a proposal to require
registration for remote participants at IETF meetings. The objective of
requiring registration for real-time remote participation is to provide
better data to the IETF community and leadership about the size and make-up
of the remote participant base. As remote participation grows, having more
reliable remote participation data will allow the service to be better
tailored to those using it and the community as a whole, and will help us
understand the potential impact of remote participation on in-person
participation. We understand that even with required registration the data
collected will not be perfect, complete, or unspoofable, but we believe it
would provide a more credible basis for analysis than the data available
today.
The proposal is as follows:
Remote participants would be required to register (for free) by
providing the information below (* denotes required fields). Registration
would be mandatory to access MeetEcho sessions in real time and to join the
remote mic queue during a session.
Title
First / Given Name*
Last / Family Name*
Company / Organization
ISO 3166 Country of Residence*
Email*
Gender
Have you attended an IETF meeting in person before?
Have you attended an IETF meeting remotely before?
Upon registering, participants would be issued a registration ID, just
as they are today.
To join a session, participants would be asked to input the registration
ID. The same email-based facility that is currently available to retrieve a
forgotten registration ID would continue to be available. The cookie-based
“Remember me” option would also still be available. The only difference
from how login works today is that the option to "Join without registration
ID" would be removed. Other options for authentication (leveraging a
user-chosen password or datatracker credentials) might be explored further
in the future.
Remote participation registration data would be stored and secured by
AMS and MeetEcho just as it is currently today. As is the case now, no
registration or login would be required to access MeetEcho recordings,
audio recordings, YouTube videos, or jabber rooms. And no changes are being
proposed as to the handling of virtual blue sheets.
We'd like to hear from the community about this proposal. Please send
comments to ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org <mailto:ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>, or
exceptionally to
iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org <mailto:iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>, preferably by May
30, 2017.
Thanks,
The IESG