Ugh. Ignore that email below - I had sent it a few days ago but somehow it got stuck in the outbox and never got sent, and the discussion is past that point now so it doesn't matter.
-hadriel On Aug 12, 2013, at 12:35 PM, Hadriel Kaplan <hadriel.kap...@oracle.com> wrote: > > [personal disclaimer: I have participated remotely, a few times, and I agree > that it's not the same as being there, and I agree that it could be improved. > But I think we need to balance the needs of remote participants, vs. the > goals of physical meetings: to get work done that can only get done with > direct human interaction, with real-time interactive discussion, and hallway > co-mingling, etc. In my opinion being remote will *never* be the same as > being there, and that's why we have physical meetings to begin with, instead > of just virtual ones - ultimately I want you to come to the meeting > *physically*... but I want to do as much as possible and *practical* to > accommodate remote participants, because I know not everyone has the luxury > to come, and I want their input regardless.] > > > I think one challenge with this discussion, at least for me, is that it feels > like the solutions being proposed are completely out of whack with the > severity and nature of the problems at hand, and the people they apply to. > Adding more rules and processes is about the surest way I know to annoy > engineers, let alone volunteer ones. And if your right hand is sore, you > don't cut it off and replace with a mechanical one, or go build a > billion-dollar robot to be controlled by brain-waves. > > People on this list are saying things like "we don't know who's at the mic", > and "we can't see the slides well enough", and "presenters are hard to > follow". ISTM there are practical and low-tech means of fixing those > problems. > > Here're some ideas of possible solutions - but most of these boil down to > either "have WG Chairs do their job", or "get over it": > > Problem-1: we don't know who's at the mic, because people forget to say their > names. > Solution: (a) train WG Chairs to remind people at mic, and interrupt them if > they haven't said their names, (b) have jabber scribes sit next to mics, to > do the same as WG chairs, (c) if chairs and scribes forget, send a chat > message in jabber to remind them. Is it annoying? Sure. Will it sometimes > fail to work? Sure. But every other solution will also be annoying and not > always work, and this solution is very low-tech and simple. This is what > happens in RAI area WG meetings, and appears to work afaict. If it doesn't > work, then we go to a Plan-B in the future. > > Problem-2: we can't see the slides well enough, in video. Meetecho is ok, > but they don't cover all meetings. > Solution: we pay Meetecho to cover all WG meetings. Last time I checked, we > weren't paying them anything; but if we really want that type of technology > in all meetings, then it's only fair to pay them. (frankly we should be > paying them now already) We also need to remind people to use reasonable > font size. 10pt is bad mojo even in the physical room. That type of thing > is what a WG chair should be telling people, though - we don't need slide > police. > > Problem-3: presenters are hard to hear/follow/understand. > Solution: that's life. We're a volunteer organization, not trained > professional thespians. We have drafts written in plain ascii available in > advance, and audio, and video, and jabber, and (hopefully) Meetecho-type > service, and that's about as good as it can reasonably be. > > Problem-4: we want slides 7 days in advance to translate to our native > language > Solution: You're doing it wrong - or rather, the presenters are doing it > wrong. The slides aren't a replacement for drafts, or a copy-paste of draft > text. WG Chairs know this, and should remind presenters of it. As an aside, > if you really need a week to translate them, it's highly unlikely you'll be > able to truly *participate* interactively during the meeting - and you don't > need to be real-time if all you're going to do is listen/watch - we record > the whole thing for your later viewing pleasure. > > Problem-5: we want slides 48 hours in advance to translate to our native > language, download it, etc. > Solution: sounds reasonable. Have WG chairs use 48 hours as their guideline, > but not as a strictly enforced rule a la I-D submission deadlines. WG chairs > can figure out when exceptions need to be made, how to deal with it, etc. We > don't need this in an RFC. > > Problem-6: if you change slides, I don't know which slides you changed > Solution: it happens, and that's life. You've got to follow the speaker's > words, not a published script. The point of these meetings is for real-time > discussion on relevant matters that can only be handled live. > > Problem-7: > > -hadriel > > > On Aug 8, 2013, at 10:43 AM, John C Klensin <john-i...@jck.com> wrote: > >> --On Tuesday, August 06, 2013 11:06 -0400 Andrew Feren >> <andr...@plixer.com> wrote: >> >>> ... >>> I think this sort of misses the point. At least for me as a >>> remote participant. >>> >>> I'm not interested in arguing about whether slides are good or >>> bad. I am interested in following (and being involved) in the >>> WG meeting. When there are slides I want to be able to see >>> them clearly from my remote location. Having them integrated >>> with Meetecho works fine. Having slides and other materials >>> ... >> >> Let me say part of this differently, with the understanding I >> may be more fussy (or older and less tolerant) than Andrew is... >> >> If the IETF is going to claim that remote participation (rather >> than remote passive listening/ observation with mailing list >> follow up) is feasible, then it has to work. If, as a remote >> participant, I could be guaranteed zero-delay transmission and >> receipt of audio and visual materials (including high enough >> resolution of slides to be able to read all of them) and that >> speakers (in front of the room and at the mic) would identify >> themselves clearly and then speak clearly and at reasonable >> speed, enunciating every word, I wouldn't care whether slides >> were posted in advance or not. >> >> Realistically, that doesn't happen. In some cases (e.g., >> lag-free audio) it is beyond the state of the art or a serious >> technical challenge (e.g., video that is high enough resolution >> that I can slides that have been prepared with 12 point type). >> In others, we haven't done nearly enough speaker training or it >> hasn't been effective (e.g., people mumbling, speaking very >> quickly, swallowing words, or wandering out of microphone or >> camera range). And sometimes there are just problems (e.g., >> intermittent audio or video, servers crashing, noisy audio >> cables or other audio or video problems in the room). >> >> In those cases, as a remote participant, I need all the help I >> can get. I'd rather than no one ever use a slide that has >> information on it in a type size that would be smaller than 20 >> pt on A4 paper. But 14 pt and even 12 pt happen, especially if >> the slides were prepared with a tool that quietly shrinks things >> to fit in the image area. If I'm in the room and such a slide >> is projected, I can walk to the front to see if if I'm not >> already in front and can't deduce what I need from context. If >> I'm remote and have such a slide in advance, I can zoom in on it >> or otherwise get to the information I need (assuming high enough >> resolution). If I'm remote and reading the slide off video, >> especially low resolution video, is hopeless. >> >> More generally, being able to see an outline of what the speaker >> is talking about is of huge help when the audio isn't completely >> clear. Others have mentioned this, but, if I couldn't read and >> understand slides in English easily in real time, it would be of >> even more help if I had the slides far enough in advance to be >> able to read through them at my own pace before the WG session >> and even make notes abut what they are about in my most-familiar >> language ... and that is true whether I'm remote or in the room. >> >> And, yes, for my purposes, 48 hours ahead of the WG meeting >> would be plenty. But I can read and understand English in real >> time. If the IETF cares about diversity as well as about remote >> participation and someone whose English is worse than mine is >> trying to follow several WGs, 48 hours may not be enough without >> requiring a lot of extra effort. >> >> That is not, however, the key reason I said "a week". The more >> important part of the reason is that a one-week cutoff gives the >> WG Chair (or IETF or IAB Chairs for the plenaries) the time to >> make adjustments. If there is a nominal one week deadline, then >> the WG Chair has lots of warning when things don't show up. She >> can respond by getting on someone's case, by accepting a firm >> promise and a closer deadline, by finding someone else to take >> charge of the presentation or discussion-leading, or by >> rearranging the agenda. And exceptions can be explained to the >> WG on the mailing list. With a 48 hour deadline, reasonable >> ways to compensate are much less likely, the Chair is likely to >> have only the choice that was presented this time (accepting >> late slides or hurting the WG's ability to consider important >> issues) and one needs to start talking about sanctions for bad >> behavior. I would never suggest a firm "one week or no agenda >> time" rule. I am suggesting something much more like a "one >> week or the WG Chair needs to make an exception, explain it to >> the WG, and be accountable if the late slides cause too much of >> a problem". There is some similarity between this and the >> current I-D cutoff rule and its provision for AD-authorized >> exceptions. That similarity is intentional. >> >> >> --On Monday, August 05, 2013 13:36 -0500 James Polk >> <jmp...@cisco.com> wrote: >> >>> 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... >> >> Hmm. First, I missed the IESG Statement requiring the people >> use pptx or any other particular piece of >> presentation-preparation software, much less the IETF consensus >> for that statement. If the tools you choose to use don't meet >> the needs of the IETF, that doesn't seem to me to be an IETF >> problem. >> >> Second and more important, while having slide preparation >> software number pages, I'm not aware of anything that prevents >> you from typing in numbers, especially with something that is as >> inherently page (slide)-oriented as presentation-preparation >> software. Yes, it is an annoyance, but having the need to >> update slides within a short interval before the meeting/ >> presentation/ discussion is an annoyance to participants who >> depend on the ability to access those slides and who might want >> to prepare reference or discussion notes in advance. >> >>> 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)? >> >> 3a. >> >>> 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. >> >> See above. >> >> best, >> john >
