Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-12 Thread Hadriel Kaplan
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 wrote: > > [personal disclaimer: I have participated

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-12 Thread Hadriel Kaplan
[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 don

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-08 Thread Michael Richardson
John C Klensin 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, especially if

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-08 Thread Dave Crocker
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 doin

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-08 Thread Scott Brim
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 availab

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-08 Thread John C Klensin
--On Tuesday, August 06, 2013 11:06 -0400 Andrew Feren 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 meetin

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-08 Thread Andrew Feren
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

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-06 Thread Joe Abley
On 2013-08-06, at 15:35, Aaron Yi DING 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 experience consuming my own

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-06 Thread Aaron Yi DING
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 m

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-06 Thread Douglas Otis
On Aug 6, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Eliot Lear 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 time lis

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-06 Thread Joe Abley
On 2013-08-06, at 14:00, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: >> An example of (2) can be found in >> where I >> presented a one-slide problem statement that consisted entirely filled with >> an xkcd cartoon. > > Huh, who knew DNS Ops was ro

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-06 Thread Keith Moore
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 th

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-06 Thread Hadriel Kaplan
On Aug 6, 2013, at 1:41 PM, Joe Abley 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 room so that

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-06 Thread Eliot Lear
Hey Joe, On 8/6/13 7:41 PM, Joe Abley wrote: > An example of (2) can be found in > where I > presented a one-slide problem statement that consisted entirely filled with > an xkcd cartoon. Once the room is suitably filled with hil

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-06 Thread Joe Abley
On 2013-08-06, at 10:26, Aaron Yi DING 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 distract the e-mail-read

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-06 Thread Michael Richardson
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 during

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-06 Thread Andrew Feren
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.

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-06 Thread Aaron Yi DING
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, a

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-06 Thread Aaron Yi DING
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

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-06 Thread Keith Moore
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 sup

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-05 Thread John Curran
On Aug 4, 2013, at 2:20 PM, John C Klensin 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 someone else

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-05 Thread John C Klensin
--On Tuesday, August 06, 2013 02:06 +0100 Stephen Farrell 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 was accidental

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-05 Thread Stephen Farrell
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.

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-05 Thread James Polk
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

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-05 Thread John C Klensin
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 th

Re: Anonymity versus Pseudonymity (was Re: [87attendees] procedural question with remote participation)

2013-08-05 Thread John C Klensin
--On Sunday, August 04, 2013 19:31 + Ted Lemon wrote: > If you came to the IETF and were working for company X, > registered pseudonymously, and didn't disclose IPR belonging > to you or company X, and then later company X sued someone for > using their IPR, you and company X would get rake

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-05 Thread Michael Richardson
Spencer Dawkins 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 from a (new) presenter in

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-05 Thread Hadriel Kaplan
On Aug 5, 2013, at 5:26 AM, SM 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 agendas are

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-05 Thread Scott Brim
On 08/05/13 07:51, Yoav Nir allegedly wrote: > > On Aug 5, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Scott Brim 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

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-05 Thread Yoav Nir
On Aug 5, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Scott Brim 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 working group s

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-05 Thread Scott Brim
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

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-05 Thread Hadriel Kaplan
On Aug 5, 2013, at 5:28 AM, Stephen Farrell 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 problem). So I'd say

Re: [87attendees] procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-05 Thread Spencer Dawkins at IETF
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: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-05 Thread Aaron Yi DING
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 non-

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-05 Thread Scott Brim
> 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 pa

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-05 Thread SM
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. Yo

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-05 Thread Stephen Farrell
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 suffici

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-05 Thread Dave Cridland
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > 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 not all IM c

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-05 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
On 8/4/13 4:41 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: > > On Aug 3, 2013, at 7:25 PM, John C Klensin > 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 meeting

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-04 Thread Spencer Dawkins
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 tact

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-04 Thread Hadriel Kaplan
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 jo

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-04 Thread Spencer Dawkins
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 self

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-04 Thread Aaron Yi DING
On 04/08/13 23:37, Melinda Shore wrote: We're all different, and for my purposes, in all honesty, having slides unavailable until 45 seconds before a session start hasn't been an issue as a remote participant. It's definitely aggravating as a chair, though, since we need to get those uploaded vi

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-04 Thread Hadriel Kaplan
On Aug 3, 2013, at 7:25 PM, John C Klensin 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 meeting > room a few minutes late -- announcements at the b

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-04 Thread Melinda Shore
We're all different, and for my purposes, in all honesty, having slides unavailable until 45 seconds before a session start hasn't been an issue as a remote participant. It's definitely aggravating as a chair, though, since we need to get those uploaded via the meeting materials manager. Overall,

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-04 Thread Stephen Farrell
On 08/04/2013 09:20 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Finally: a deadline one week before the meeting is no harder to meet > than one minute before the meeting. Disagree. I often end up updating stuff late in the day and that should continue to be fine. Secondarily, its my impression that people a

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-04 Thread Hadriel Kaplan
On Aug 4, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Brian E Carpenter 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 attend, and > even prepare q

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-04 Thread Scott Brim
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.

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-04 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 05/08/2013 06:54, 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

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-04 Thread Hadriel Kaplan
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 self-standing documents. They're merely to help

Re: Anonymity versus Pseudonymity (was Re: [87attendees] procedural question with remote participation)

2013-08-04 Thread Ted Lemon
On Aug 4, 2013, at 3:06 PM, Yoav Nir 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 trial. But the name

Re: Anonymity versus Pseudonymity (was Re: [87attendees] procedural question with remote participation)

2013-08-04 Thread Yoav Nir
On Aug 4, 2013, at 9:09 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Aug 3, 2013, at 10:23 PM, Yoav Nir 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 t

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-04 Thread Ted Lemon
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 jus

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-04 Thread John C Klensin
--On Sunday, August 04, 2013 07:27 -0400 Michael Richardson wrote: >... > > * On several occasions this week, slides were uploaded > > on a just-in-time basis (or an hour or so after that). > > Agreed. I'd like to have this as a very clear IETF-wide > policy. No slides 1 week before h

Re: Anonymity versus Pseudonymity (was Re: [87attendees] procedural question with remote participation)

2013-08-04 Thread Ted Lemon
On Aug 3, 2013, at 10:23 PM, Yoav Nir 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. I claim to work

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-04 Thread Michael Richardson
I attended meetings 36 through 62 in-person, missing about 1 in 4. I've never attended a meeting in asia-pacific, as about half were paid out of my own pocket, That was in the days of multicast, and I never got an mbone tunnel working, although Joe Abley and I once *saw* them in tcpdump go past

Re: Anonymity versus Pseudonymity (was Re: [87attendees] procedural question with remote participation)

2013-08-03 Thread Yoav Nir
On Aug 3, 2013, at 9:49 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote: > > 2 aug 2013 kl. 14:13 skrev Scott Brim : > >> 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

Re: procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-03 Thread John C Klensin
--On Saturday, August 03, 2013 08:55 +0200 "Olle E. Johansson" wrote: >... >>> Just a note for the future. I think we should allow >>> anonymous listeners, but should they really be allowed to >>> participate? >> >> We don't allow anonymous comments at the microphone in >> face-to-face meeting

RE: Anonymity versus Pseudonymity (was Re: [87attendees] procedural question with remote participation)

2013-08-03 Thread l.wood
e: [87attendees] 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

Re: Anonymity versus Pseudonymity (was Re: [87attendees] procedural question with remote participation)

2013-08-03 Thread Scott Brim
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 m

Re: [87attendees] procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-03 Thread Olle E. Johansson
2 aug 2013 kl. 16:12 skrev Dan York : > Olle, > > > On 8/2/13 12:24 PM, "Olle E. Johansson" 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 jabber scribes

Re: Anonymity versus Pseudonymity (was Re: [87attendees] procedural question with remote participation)

2013-08-03 Thread Olle E. Johansson
2 aug 2013 kl. 14:13 skrev Scott Brim : > 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 broug

Re: Anonymity versus Pseudonymity (was Re: [87attendees] procedural question with remote participation)

2013-08-02 Thread Abdussalam Baryun
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 hid

Re: Anonymity versus Pseudonymity (was Re: [87attendees] procedural question with remote participation)

2013-08-02 Thread Lou Berger
+1. On August 2, 2013 1:13:05 PM 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

Re: Anonymity versus Pseudonymity (was Re: [87attendees] procedural question with remote participation)

2013-08-02 Thread Brian E Carpenter
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

Re: Anonymity versus Pseudonymity (was Re: [87attendees] procedural question with remote participation)

2013-08-02 Thread Scott Brim
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.

Anonymity versus Pseudonymity (was Re: [87attendees] procedural question with remote participation)

2013-08-02 Thread Adam Roach
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 p