Re: procedural question with remote participation
Hi Keith, Thanks for clarifying. Put that way I agree 100%. -Andrew On 08/06/2013 02:03 PM, Keith Moore wrote: On 08/06/2013 11:06 AM, Andrew Feren wrote: 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. For that, it seems to me that Meetecho support does exactly what is needed. You just follow the slideshow online, along with the audio. I agree that remote people should see the slides at the same time as local people, except that I think that in both cases this should be well before the meeting. The slides shouldn't be shown at the meeting unless needed to illustrate a point of active discussion. People keep acting as if the purpose of these meetings - the reason people spend thousands of euro and travel thousands of km - is to watch slides. Hi Keith, I think this sort of misses the point. At least for me as a remote participant. Actually I think the desire to get slides out early largely misses the point. Or at least, it's an effort optimizing what should be the rare case. I fully agree that slides should be easily available to both local and remote participants well prior to any meeting in which a presentation will be made. (Say a plenary session where presentations are normal and appropriate.) While speakers might like to revise their slides at the last minute, there's no reason why they shouldn't be expected to upload preliminary slides well in advance (because the key to an effective presentation is good preparation, after all) and a revised version (if necessary) later. 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 and bar conversations. Having a local speaker read something from a laptop that was typed into a Jabber session by a remote participant is better than nothing. But surely we can do better. As of today when the slides are available (or if there are no slides and just talk) I can follow WG meetings quite well. Being able to actively engage in any discussion remotely is, IMO, pretty much limited to the mailing lists. Getting involved in an active discussion at a WG meeting remotely is currently difficult at best and impossible at worst. It used to be the case that Internet access at IETF meetings was flaky, either because of the wireless network or because of the network connection or both. More recently the performance of the meeting Internet access has been stellar. If we put the same kind of effort into facilitating remote participation in discussions, I suspect we could move from difficult at best and impossible at worse to works well. Of course, it might take awhile, but it's those very kinds of discussions that are so essential to broad consensus that (when it works) makes our standards effective. The fact that it doesn't work well now is not a good argument for not making it work well in the future. (We're supposed to be creating the future, after all. That's our job.) It's also the case that the fact that facilities for involving remote participants in conversation haven't historically worked well, is used as a justification for continuing to have this dysfunctional style of conducting working group meetings, thus making very poor use of local participants' time and money. I'm all for making presentation slides available to local and remote participants well before the meeting. 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
Re: procedural question with remote participation
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. For that, it seems to me that Meetecho support does exactly what is needed. You just follow the slideshow online, along with the audio. I agree that remote people should see the slides at the same time as local people, except that I think that in both cases this should be well before the meeting. The slides shouldn't be shown at the meeting unless needed to illustrate a point of active discussion. People keep acting as if the purpose of these meetings - the reason people spend thousands of euro and travel thousands of km - is to watch slides. Hi Keith, 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 available to download ahead of time is also OK. I can work with what is available, but having slides brought to the meeting on USB (it happens) does me no good. Also people using pointing devices, that can't be seen remotely, to point to areas on each slide doesn't help. As of today when the slides are available (or if there are no slides and just talk) I can follow WG meetings quite well. Being able to actively engage in any discussion remotely is, IMO, pretty much limited to the mailing lists. Getting involved in an active discussion at a WG meeting remotely is currently difficult at best and impossible at worst. I'm all in favor of discussions in WG meetings, but from where I sit we still have a ways to go to fully integrate remote participants. Making slides available soon enough to be viewed by remote attendees during the meeting seems like an achievable step towards better integration of remote participants. The usefulness of doing this is also independent of whether the slides are for a presentation or to illustrate a point of discussion. As Ted noted, What is important is that remote people see the slides at the same time as local people. That is the point. -Andrew
Re: Last Call: draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC
On 09/29/2011 09:18 AM, Thomas Nadeau wrote: A few more thoughts on this thread. All, I propose to completely remove section 5 of this draft. The reason: The IETF should *NOT* document any comment on any multiple standards developed by other SDOs which are outside of the IETF's scope. Especially standards like like SONET/SDH, CDMA/GSM. The current text reflects the author's impressions, and since I don't believe that the authors were involved in the debates when these standards were developed, they *DO NOT KNOW ENOUGH* to comment authoritatively on them. Why do you suddenly think that it is important for only people with knowledge of a topic to contribute to standards? Where does that leave the ITU-T's input on MPLS? I can give you many examples of where people who had no qualification as experts in a particular field have contributed to standards, but I will refrain from doing so so as to not offend other SDOs as you say below. 8) I would say that having knowledge of a topic is a requirement, but that *expert* knowledge of a topic is not a requirement. Just look at the IETF mailing lists. There are plenty of people with something to say who do not to have expert knowledge of a topic. Almost certainly of us at one time or another. Sometimes new ideas come from looking at a problem without the preconceptions that come with being an expert. Sometimes experts really do know better. This is why we have discussions to build consensus as to which ideas should be kept or discarded. Both experts and nonexperts can have valuable contributions and improve each others understanding. -Andrew Not an expert on standards or even SONET/SDH, CDMA/GSM The IETF should refrain from documenting things that might offend other SDOs concerning standards issues in which IETF was or is not involved. Since when does offending other SDOs become a concern of any other SDO? Along these lines, let us take the flip-side of that example you give and ask ourselves why the ITU-T's comments on MPLS do not offend IETF folks (or other SDOs for that matter) and why there was not a concern of offending when those were made? --Tom Best regards, Huub. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Wikis for RFCs
On Fri 16 Sep 2011 03:22:08 PM EDT, Keith Moore wrote: On Sep 16, 2011, at 3:07 PM, hector wrote: I don't see these ass Wikis but basically blog style flat display of user comments, which I often do find useful, especially for the user (this way) upon user (not always) follow ups. A Wiki is more where you can change the main content and perhaps even the context. I don't think that is a good idea for RFCs. I'm thinking in terms of a hybrid Wiki where the RFC content is static but the discussion is maintainable as a Wiki and can be visually associated with the RFC content. You'd also want the RFC content to be clearly distinguished from the discussion. Keith Something like the annotate POD feature for perl modules on CPAN? Example: Unannotated http://search.cpan.org/~timb/DBI-1.616/DBI.pm Annotated http://www.annocpan.org/~TIMB/DBI-1.616/DBI.pm -Andrew ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
