The process of refunding registration fees for IETF 107 Vancouver has begun.
As previously notified [1] we are refunding in full all remaining in-person
registrations and refunding the cancellation fee of all previously cancelled
registrations.
Additionally, for the remaining in-person
that you receive
important updates on agenda changes and other things of interest to
meeting attendees. Please register here:
<https://www.ietf.org/registration/ietf104/remotereg.py>
General remote participation information can be found here:
<https://ietf.org/how/meetings/104/remote
that you receive
important updates on agenda changes and other things of interest to
meeting attendees. Please register here:
<https://www.ietf.org/registration/ietf103/remotereg.py>
General remote participation information can be found here:
<https://ietf.org/how/meetings/103/remote
You may use Meetecho to participate in or just observe any session being held
in Buenos Aires. Here are the requirements and details.
1. Individuals are required to register for the meeting to observe or
participate via Meetecho.
- Individuals are required to enter registration I.D and name
Hello,
The IAOC Remote Participation Services Committee provides input to the IAOC on
the evolution of IETF Remote Participation Services, including potential remote
participation service experiments. The charter of the IAOC RPS Committee is
available here:
http://iaoc.ietf.org
with MeetEcho or WebEx. That's up to them, so you might want to contact
Jari about this.
Yoav
On Sep 25, 2013, at 12:12 AM, Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
I would like to request (if possible of course) remote participation
for this BoF:
igovupdate
I am
with MeetEcho or WebEx. That's up to them, so you might
want to contact Jari about this.
Yoav
On Sep 25, 2013, at 12:12 AM, Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
I would like to request (if possible of course) remote participation
for this BoF:
igovupdate
I am not sure
or WebEx. That's up to them, so you might
want to contact Jari about this.
Yoav
On Sep 25, 2013, at 12:12 AM, Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
I would like to request (if possible of course) remote participation
for this BoF:
igovupdate
I am not sure what
Hi Alex,
At 23:52 26-09-2013, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
I am wondering where are the video/audiologs of recent BoFs? So I
can prepare what to to expect during a typical BoF.
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/agenda/agenda-87-tcmtf
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/minutes/minutes-87-tcmtf
Hi Alessandro,
At 00:22 28-09-2012, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
IMHO, participation of individuals and small businesses is not less
important than that of newcomers from emerging and developing economies.
I noticed that you asked a question about the ISOC fellowship about a
year ago. There is
Hi,
I would like to request (if possible of course) remote participation
for this BoF:
igovupdate
I am not sure what are the proper channels for the request but I think
it would be very valuable for remote participants to attend this meeting
(including me that won't go to Vanc
. That's up to them, so you might want to contact
Jari about this.
Yoav
On Sep 25, 2013, at 12:12 AM, Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
I would like to request (if possible of course) remote participation
for this BoF:
igovupdate
I am not sure what are the proper
,
I would like to request (if possible of course) remote participation
for this BoF:
igovupdate
I am not sure what are the proper channels for the request but I think
it would be very valuable for remote participants to attend this meeting
(including me that won't go to Vanc.).
Thanks
as
Hi Vinayak,
At 06:09 AM 8/12/2013, Vinayak Hegde wrote:
There has been a lot of discussion on the IETF mailing list regarding
improving remote participation and improving diversity on the mailing
lists and in the working groups. I think the two are related. I think
everyone broadly agrees
Hi,
There has been a lot of discussion on the IETF mailing list regarding
improving remote participation and improving diversity on the mailing
lists and in the working groups. I think the two are related. I think
everyone broadly agrees that remote participation can be better. If
nothing else
for remote participation
Sent by: ietf-boun...@ietf.org
Hi,
There has been a lot of discussion on the IETF mailing list regarding
improving remote participation and improving diversity on the mailing
lists and in the working groups. I think the two are related. I think
everyone broadly
Hi Vinayak,
First, well done, I fully agree with your email. I have two
questions for you/the group:
1) I wonder if in your proposal you are considering some sort of
charge for remote participation. IMHO I do not think we are yet
prepare to charge.
2) When you mention that filling
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Janet P Gunn jgu...@csc.com wrote:
As someone who has done it both ways (in person and remotely) I have a
couple of comments.
Having the slides available early is an advantage to BOTH in-person and
remote participants.
As a remote participant I need the
On the other hand, I DO think that the number of remote participants
for a
particular session IS a useful parameter for how important is it to
have an
active jabber scribe and how important is it to make sure the audio
streaming is working well.
Agreed. Again, it strengthens the
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Alejandro Acosta
alejandroacostaal...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Vinayak,
First, well done, I fully agree with your email. I have two
questions for you/the group:
1) I wonder if in your proposal you are considering some sort of
charge for remote participation
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
. 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
Janet P Gunn jgu...@csc.com wrote:
Again, it strengthens the case to get it done right. This part has been
working well though.
Not necessarily. There was one WG where I had to send an email to the WG
mailing list asking for someone to provide slide numbers on jabber.
... and Janet
On 8/12/13, Vinayak Hegde vinay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Alejandro Acosta
alejandroacostaal...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Vinayak,
First, well done, I fully agree with your email. I have two
questions for you/the group:
I would add to your proposal some kind of
. This isn't at all rocket science, and
there's no reason why it should not be done.
But if we really want to make remote participation effective, we need
to figure out better ways to involve remote participants in
_discussions_ - not only in plenaries, WG meetings, BOFs, etc., but
also in hallway
) 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
Well, I've worked remotely for 16 years and in most meetings I don't get
to see the slides until the meeting starts. Usually I can only see them
via some conferencing tool. Sometimes I get a copy in mail the week
after. So I think the IETF is already doing pretty well at making
materials
On 8/8/2013 7:53 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
Well, I've worked remotely for 16 years and in most meetings I don't get
to see the slides until the meeting starts. Usually I can only see them
via some conferencing tool. Sometimes I get a copy in mail the week
after. So I think the IETF is already
John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
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,
On 08/04/2013 02:54 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
While I think getting slides in on time is great for a lot of reasons, reading
the slides early isn't that important. What is important is that remote
people see the slides at the same time as local people. For that, it seems to
me that Meetecho
On 06/08/13 14:08, Keith Moore wrote:
On 08/04/2013 02:54 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
While I think getting slides in on time is great for a lot of reasons,
reading the slides early isn't that important. What is important is
that remote people see the slides at the same time as local people.
For
to clarify, imho:
presentation != slides
making the best out of IETF meetings for both f2f and remote
participants is hard and yet worth our try.
back to our slides shipping tread, everybody has own opinion toward
whether I prefer/believe the slides should be uploaded earlier or not
so,
On 08/06/2013 09:08 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
On 08/04/2013 02:54 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
While I think getting slides in on time is great for a lot of
reasons, reading the slides early isn't that important. What is
important is that remote people see the slides at the same time as
local people.
If the WG/session chairs did not receive the slides at least a few days prior
to the meeting, then it is really hard for the WG chairs to make sure that
the slides support a discussion, rather than a presentation.
Given that we have meetings on Friday morning, and some people are very busy
On 2013-08-06, at 10:26, Aaron Yi DING aaron.d...@cl.cam.ac.uk wrote:
to clarify, imho:
presentation != slides
In my experience, slides are mainly useful:
1. To convey information which is difficult to express accurately by voice only
(e.g. graphs, names of drafts, big numbers)
2. To
Hey Joe,
On 8/6/13 7:41 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
An example of (2) can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/slides/slides-87-dnsop-8.pdf where I
presented a one-slide problem statement that consisted entirely filled with
an xkcd cartoon. Once the room is suitably filled with
On Aug 6, 2013, at 1:41 PM, Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca wrote:
In my experience, slides are mainly useful:
1. To convey information which is difficult to express accurately by voice
only (e.g. graphs, names of drafts, big numbers)
Yup.
2. To distract the e-mail-reading audience in the
remote participation effective, we need to
figure out better ways to involve remote participants in _discussions_ -
not only in plenaries, WG meetings, BOFs, etc., but also in hallway and
bar conversations. Having a local speaker read something from a laptop
that was typed into a Jabber session
On 2013-08-06, at 14:00, Hadriel Kaplan hadriel.kap...@oracle.com wrote:
An example of (2) can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/slides/slides-87-dnsop-8.pdf where I
presented a one-slide problem statement that consisted entirely filled with
an xkcd cartoon.
Huh, who knew
On Aug 6, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com wrote:
But if those lines contain questions, it gets you to the point where there is
discussion, which is just fine, as you point out here:
The best outcome at a working group meeting is that, as a presenter, you
spend most of your
On 06/08/13 19:03, Keith Moore wrote:
But if we're only concerned with making presentation slides available,
we're selling ourselves very short. That's the point I'm trying to
make.
Keith
Hi Keith,
Thanks for clarifying it - agree with you fully on this point.
Keeping a clear goal in
On 2013-08-06, at 15:35, Aaron Yi DING aaron.d...@cl.cam.ac.uk wrote:
PS: I personally find it rather funny to see people claiming one's own
approach works better and so forth implicitly indicating they really
understand what remote/f2f participants need,
For the record, I have zero
On 8/4/13 4:41 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
On Aug 3, 2013, at 7:25 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com
wrote:
First, probably to the when meetings begin part, but noting that
someone who gets onto the audio a few minutes late is in exactly
the same situation as someone who walks into the
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.imwrote:
I don't want to promise too much, but in time for Vancouver I'll
probably finish some code that sends you all sorts of helpful
information when you join the jabber room. There is a standardized room
subject message but
On 08/05/2013 10:07 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
One such hoop might be acknowledging the (privately sent) Note Well message
(thus equating XEP-0045 Participant with IETF Participant to some degree).
Another might be that we tell them to go away if their XEP-0054 vCard
doesn't include sufficient
At 13:10 04-08-2013, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
OK, I'll bite. Why do you and Michael believe you need to have the
slides 1 week in advance?
One generation's bad behavior becomes the next generation's best
practice. It would be appreciated if those slides could be made
available in advance.
Right, but Fuyou was talking about *spoken* English being more
challenging than written English (if you can't *read* English fairly
quickly, drafts and mailing lists are impenetrable, and you're done in the
IETF). I'm told that it's easier for non-native English speakers to read
slides than to
On 05/08/13 10:38, Scott Brim wrote:
Right, but Fuyou was talking about *spoken* English being more
challenging than written English (if you can't *read* English fairly
quickly, drafts and mailing lists are impenetrable, and you're done in
the IETF). I'm told that it's easier for
On Monday, August 5, 2013, Aaron Yi DING wrote:
On 05/08/13 10:38, Scott Brim wrote:
Right, but Fuyou was talking about *spoken* English being more
challenging than written English (if you can't *read* English fairly
quickly, drafts and mailing lists are impenetrable, and you're done in
On Aug 5, 2013, at 5:28 AM, Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
I hope folks who invest effort in tooling try to make it all
easier and not harder. Right now we don't have good tools that
allow remote folks to easily provide live input (and maybe
that's just because its a hard
On 08/05/13 07:31, Hadriel Kaplan allegedly wrote:
Yup, afaict we were doing ok until IETF 87... but at least one anonymous
jabber participant (named Guest) did remotely speak multiple times at the
mic on one of the RAI working group sessions this past week (at RTCWEB if I
recall). I was
On Aug 5, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/05/13 07:31, Hadriel Kaplan allegedly wrote:
Yup, afaict we were doing ok until IETF 87... but at least one anonymous
jabber participant (named Guest) did remotely speak multiple times at the
mic on one of the RAI
On 08/05/13 07:51, Yoav Nir allegedly wrote:
On Aug 5, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/05/13 07:31, Hadriel Kaplan allegedly wrote:
Yup, afaict we were doing ok until IETF 87... but at least one anonymous
jabber participant (named Guest) did remotely speak
On Aug 5, 2013, at 5:26 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
At 13:10 04-08-2013, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
You have the agenda and drafts 2 weeks in advance. The slides aren't
normative. Even
I do not have the agenda two weeks in advance.
Huh. Sounds like a WG Chair problem. I believe draft
Spencer Dawkins spencerdawkins.i...@gmail.com quoted Hadiel really poorly,
which confused me as you who said this, but I think it was Hadriel now:
OK, I'll bite. Why do you and Michael believe you need to have the
slides 1 week in advance?
1) As a WG chair, I'd like to see the slides
created by anonymous and
pseudonymous remote participation, I assume we would not decline
to post an IPR disclosure from an organization on the grounds
that we didn't know who was affiliated with it who participated
in the IETF.
(IANAL, so I'm just explaining my understanding of the
situation.)
ditto
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
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
On 08/05/2013 12:31 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
but at least one anonymous jabber participant (named Guest) did
remotely speak multiple times at the mic on one of the RAI working
group sessions this past week (at RTCWEB if I recall). I was
personally ok with it, but it was awkward.
Ah. I
--On Tuesday, August 06, 2013 02:06 +0100 Stephen Farrell
stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
...
On 08/05/2013 06:38 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
The reasons to discourage anonymity aren't just patent
nonsense (although that should be sufficient and I rather
like the pun).
Thanks. The pun
On Aug 4, 2013, at 2:20 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
I also note that the 1 week cutoff that Michael suggests would,
in most cases, eliminate had no choice without impeding WG
progress as an excuse. A week in advance of the meeting, there
should be time, if necessary to find
have generally good experiences with our remote participation.
Some problems recently:
1) the audio feed started at exactly 9:00 on Monday A problem if you need
to check your equipment. I also interrupted at exactly the start time
of the session, and it took me 20-30s to realize it, and up
On Aug 3, 2013, at 10:23 PM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
The participation in the IETF is already pseudonymous. I have a driver's
license, a passport, and a national ID card, all proving that my name is
indeed Yoav Nir. But I have never been asked to present any of them at the
IETF.
them posted before the session started. This is
part of what I mean by the community not [yet] taking remote
participation seriously. If having the slides in advance is as
important to remote participants as Michael and I believe, then
the community has to decide that late slides are simply
to the remote participation issue.
On Aug 4, 2013, at 9:09 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Aug 3, 2013, at 10:23 PM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
The participation in the IETF is already pseudonymous. I have a driver's
license, a passport, and a national ID card, all proving that my name is
indeed Yoav
On Aug 4, 2013, at 3:06 PM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
No, I use a credit card in the name of my company's head of purchasing, so
not in my name.
Why wouldn't that be sufficient to identify you? Is the head of purchasing
going to protect your anonymity?
I would never lie at
really needed the presentations and
discussion to move forward and they therefore couldn't do
anything other than let things progress when they didn't get the
slides and get them posted before the session started. This is
part of what I mean by the community not [yet] taking remote
participation
be a good use of
time. But that's completely orthogonal to the remote participation issue.
For remote attendees, there is a distinct advantage in having time to
download store slides in advance. There are still plenty of places
where real-time bandwidth is an issue and audio and jabber may be
all you
I'm less concerned about having slides than having the issues that need
discussion clear. An agenda of documents and issues tells potential
participants what they need. Slides are needed if and only if there is no
document.
On Aug 4, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
There is another equally important reason for having them well in advance,
for both on-site and remote attendees: so that participants can review
them in advance, decide which of several clashing sessions to
are as usual taking all
this too seriously. If we cumulatively do our best and if that works
ok, then overall, we're ok.
Improving on current practice is a fine thing too. But claiming or
implying that the imperfections of current practice are disastrous
for the IETF or for all remote participation
, though, I'd say my feelings
about this are substantially similar to Stephen Farrel's:
So I'd say working on ways to make remote participation better
while not making f2f participation more of a pain would be the way
to go.
And it's unclear to me that having slides available a week
. (ugh)
We regularize remote participation [1] a bit by doing the
following. At some level, if remote participants expect to be
treated as serious members of the community, they (we) can
reasonably be expected to behave that way.
* A mechanism for remote participants should be set up
via the
meeting materials manager. Overall, though, I'd say my feelings
about this are substantially similar to Stephen Farrel's:
So I'd say working on ways to make remote participation better
while not making f2f participation more of a pain would be the way
to go.
Thanks
On 8/4/2013 3:10 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
OK, I'll bite. Why do you and Michael believe you need to have the slides 1
week in advance?
You have the agenda and drafts 2 weeks in advance. The slides aren't
normative. Even when they're not about a draft in particular, the slides are
not
Regarding the need for presentations early to get them translated, and the
non-Procrustean[1] improvement of having cutoffs for presentations of new
drafts: new drafts are still submitted 2 weeks in advance, and ISTM that a real
non-Procrustean tactic would be to let the WG chairs do their
On 8/4/2013 8:36 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
Regarding the need for presentations early to get them translated, and the
non-Procrustean[1] improvement of having cutoffs for presentations of new
drafts: new drafts are still submitted 2 weeks in advance, and ISTM that a real
non-Procrustean
Hi Adam,
I don't agree with you. I am a remote participant (2 years and never
attended meetings) in the IETF organisation, do you think that IETF is
fare in treating remote participants? I think the current IETF
direction is in favor of attended-meeting participants, so IMHO one
reason of some
that should be brought up.
THat's exactly the problem. Unfortunately the world requires the IETF to
manage IPR. There's a reason why we need to be strict with the note well.
Anonymous remote *PARTICIPATION* breaks the requirements of the
note well acceptance in my view.
/O
2 aug 2013 kl. 16:12 skrev Dan York y...@isoc.org:
Olle,
On 8/2/13 12:24 PM, Olle E. Johansson o...@edvina.net wrote:
In rtcweb we have remote participants that prefer anonymity for a number
of reasons.
The question is how this is handled in regards to note well, when they
want
AB, saving your entire message for context ... You're fixing the wrong
problem. The problem is not finding a way to cloak so some unspecified
person doesn't experience abuse. It's important that we all know who we
are dealing with. The problem, rather, is what is leading you to think
anonymity
] procedural
question with remote participation)
Hi Adam,
I don't agree with you. I am a remote participant (2 years and never
attended meetings) in the IETF organisation, do you think that IETF is
fare in treating remote participants? I think the current IETF
direction is in favor of attended
, for example:
We regularize remote participation [1] a bit by doing the
following. At some level, if remote participants expect to be
treated as serious members of the community, they (we) can
reasonably be expected to behave that way.
* A mechanism for remote participants should be set up
to know who I'm dealing with, in order to know if there
are IPR issues that should be brought up.
THat's exactly the problem. Unfortunately the world requires the IETF to
manage IPR. There's a reason why we need to be strict with the note well.
Anonymous remote *PARTICIPATION* breaks
Moving to ietf@ietf.org, since I think this is not in any way specific
to Berlin.
On 8/2/13 12:24, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
In rtcweb we have remote participants that prefer anonymity for a number of
reasons.
I'm going to make a broad assumption that the number of reasons all
relate to
I'm completely against participating anonymously because of IPR issues.
I'm mostly against pseudonymous participation for the same reason. I
need to be able to know who I'm dealing with, in order to know if there
are IPR issues that should be brought up.
On 03/08/2013 00:13, Scott Brim wrote:
I'm completely against participating anonymously because of IPR issues.
I'm mostly against pseudonymous participation for the same reason. I
need to be able to know who I'm dealing with, in order to know if there
are IPR issues that should be brought
+1.
On August 2, 2013 1:13:05 PM Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm completely against participating anonymously because of IPR issues.
I'm mostly against pseudonymous participation for the same reason. I
need to be able to know who I'm dealing with, in order to know if there
are
--On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 06:43 -0800 Melinda Shore
melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/24/13 12:30 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
Yes. I was thinking a bit more generally. For example,
schedule changes during the meeting week, IIR, go to NNall,
and not ietf-announce. As a remote
On 7/24/13 9:07 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 06:43 -0800 Melinda Shore
melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/24/13 12:30 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
Yes. I was thinking a bit more generally. For example,
schedule changes during the meeting week, IIR, go to NNall,
and
A new IETF non-working group email list has been created.
List address: vm...@ietf.org
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vmeet/current/maillist.html
To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
Purpose: Explore, specify and develop improved services for remotely
From: iaoc-...@ietf.org
Subject: Accessibility of IETF Remote Participation Services
For more than a decade, the IETF has tried to make it easier for remote
attendees to participate in regular and interim face-to-face meetings. The
current tools that the IETF has been using, as well
As per a request I received from you
Dear Bernard,
Chair, IETF Remote Participation Services Committee
Thanks for your message. I am a remote participant that never ever came to
the IETF meetings and not sure if I would. I think my experience may help
your committee
iaoc-rps == iaoc-rps iaoc-...@ietf.org writes:
iaoc-rps As noted in Section 4 of the IETF Chair message, the IETF is
iaoc-rps currently soliciting suggestions for improvements in its RPS
iaoc-rps capabilities. As part of that, the IETF would like to solicit
iaoc-rps feedback
On 6/27/2013 12:06 PM, IETF Administrative Director wrote:
As part of that, the IETF
would like to solicit feedback on the accessibility and usability of remote
participation
services by IETF participants with disabilities. If you would like to comment
on
the accessibility and usability
From: iaoc-...@ietf.org
Subject: Accessibility of IETF Remote Participation Services
For more than a decade, the IETF has tried to make it easier for remote
attendees to participate in regular and interim face-to-face meetings. The
current tools that the IETF has been using, as well
Dear all,
a virtual room has been reserved on the Meetecho system for the
IETF Administrative Oversight Committee session.
Access to the on-line session (including audio and video streams) will
be available (just a couple of minutes before session start time) at:
I agree with Michael and SM, the importance is what is gained from the
face to face (F2F) meeting, if presentation is needed then do it. As I
am usually remote participant I see that Chairs are different in
handling the meetings, and there may be many reasons I don't know
about, however, it is the
On 2/11/2013 7:05 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
It's not the slides that are the problem.
It's the presentation itself.
+1.
If a meeting has good structure, management and content, the presence or
absence of slides doesn't matter.
If a meeting has poor structure, management or content,
1 - 100 of 200 matches
Mail list logo
