Video of TCMTF BoF (was: Remote participation to igovupdate BoF)

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 h

Re: Remote participation to igovupdate BoF

gt;>> room microphones. >>> >>> The BoF chairs (yet to be determined) or the AD MAY request that the >>> meeting be covered with MeetEcho or WebEx. That's up to them, so you might >>> want to contact Jari about this. >>> >>> Yoa

Re: Remote participation to igovupdate BoF

om the Jabber room will be channeled to the >>> room microphones. >>> >>> The BoF chairs (yet to be determined) or the AD MAY request that the >>> meeting be covered with MeetEcho or WebEx. That's up to them, so you might >>> want to contact Jari abo

Re: Remote participation to igovupdate BoF

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 wrote: Hi, I would like to request (if possible of course) remote participation for this BoF: igovupdate I am not sure what ar

ISOC fellowship - Attracting new people and work into the IETF (was: In person vs remote participation to meetings)

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 cu

Re: Remote participation to igovupdate BoF

turo Servin > 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 channels for the request but I think >> it woul

Re: Remote participation to igovupdate BoF

. 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 wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to request (if possible of course) remote participation > for this BoF: > > igovupdate > > I am not sure wha

Remote participation to igovupdate BoF

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

Re: Data collection for remote participation

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 that

Re: Data collection for remote participation

On 8/12/13, Vinayak Hegde wrote: > On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Alejandro Acosta > 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 activities from local ISOC >> chapters. > >

Re: Data collection for remote participation

Janet P Gunn 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 was mer

Re: procedural question with remote participation

uming 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

Re: procedural question with remote participation

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 th

Re: Data collection for remote participation

On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Alejandro Acosta 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. IMHO I d

Re: Data collection for remote participation

> > 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 streng

Re: Data collection for remote participation

On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Janet P Gunn 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 slides ava

Re: Data collection for remote participation

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 the

Re: Data collection for remote participation

ussion Mailing List > Date: 08/12/2013 09:19 AM > Subject: Data collection 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 diver

Data collection for remote participation

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

Re: procedural question with remote participation

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

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

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

y (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 re

Re: procedural question with remote participation

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 meeting

Re: procedural question with remote participation

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

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

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

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

ne. 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 t

Re: procedural question with remote participation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--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

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

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

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)

Especially with the ambiguities 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 explain

Re: procedural question with remote participation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

those uploaded 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 t

Re: procedural question with remote participation

have an annoying pop-up if you prefer. (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

Re: procedural question with remote participation

nager. 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. And it's unclear to me

Re: procedural question with remote participation

people 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 pa

Re: procedural question with remote participation

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

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

; group chairs can evaluate them to see if they will actually 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 plen

Re: procedural question with remote participation

WG chairs (from two different WGs) tell me > this week that their WGs 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 sessi

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

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)

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

tely orthogonal to the remote participation issue.

Re: procedural question with remote participation

27;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 seriously. If having the slides in advance is as important to remote participants as Michael and I believe, then the community has to decide t

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

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

out in 3min) I 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 rea

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

ed to be able 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. >

Re: procedural question with remote participation

x27;ve said some of this in other contexts but, as a periodic remote attendee, including being remote for IETF 87, I'd support a more radical proposal, for example: We regularize remote participation [1] a bit by doing the following. At some level, if remote participants expect to be treated

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

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)

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

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)

e 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 the requirements of the note well acceptance in my view. /O

Re: Anonymity versus Pseudonymity (was Re: [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 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)

+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)

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)

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)

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

Re: Remote participation and meeting mailing lists

On 7/24/13 9:07 AM, John C Klensin wrote: --On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 06:43 -0800 Melinda Shore 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

Remote participation and meeting mailing lists (was: Re: BOF posters in the welcome reception)

--On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 06:43 -0800 Melinda Shore 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 participant, one might >

Re: Accessibility of IETF Remote Participation Services

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 of

Re: Accessibility of IETF Remote Participation Services

> "iaoc-rps" == iaoc-rps 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 the a

Re: Accessibility of IETF Remote Participation Services

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

Accessibility of IETF Remote Participation Services

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 the

IAOC Overview remote participation

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: http://www.meetecho.com/ietf86/i

Re: Remote Participation Services

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

Re: Remote Participation Services

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

Re: Remote Participation Services

On 02/11/2013 08:34 PM, Keith Moore wrote: WG meetings should not, in general, be used for presentations. They should primarily be used for discussions. Presentations are largely a waste of precious WG time. It is sometimes possible to prepare slides to help facilitate discussions. But more

Re: Remote Participation Services

On 02/11/2013 11:45 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: Keith, you seem to be asking for something (discussion, wit no presentation), that has never happened in the WGs I have attended in the last 20 years. Even the WG sessions that had the best, most useful, discussions, generally started with a prese

Re: Remote Participation Services

Keith, you seem to be asking for something (discussion, wit no presentation), that has never happened in the WGs I have attended in the last 20 years. Even the WG sessions that had the best, most useful, discussions, generally started with a presentation of the topic and issue. Such initial p

Re: Remote Participation Services

On 02/11/2013 10:46 PM, Bob Hinden wrote: Keith, On Feb 11, 2013, at 5:17 PM, Keith Moore wrote: On 02/05/2013 11:04 AM, IETF Chair wrote: 3.4. Slide Sharing Slides are often sent by email in advance of the meeting. WebEx allows the slides and desktop applications to be viewed by

Re: Remote Participation Services

On 02/11/2013 10:23 PM, joel jaeggli wrote: On 2/11/13 5:17 PM, Keith Moore wrote: On 02/05/2013 11:04 AM, IETF Chair wrote: 3.4. Slide Sharing Slides are often sent by email in advance of the meeting. WebEx allows the slides and desktop applications to be viewed by the remot

Re: Remote Participation Services

On 2/11/13 6:46 PM, Bob Hinden wrote: > I disagree. The slides are a great help for non-native english > speakers. For better or worse I think that in this century slides have become a medium for documentation rather than just presentation, and so it's useful to be clear which is which. Document

Re: Remote Participation Services

Keith, On Feb 11, 2013, at 5:17 PM, Keith Moore wrote: > On 02/05/2013 11:04 AM, IETF Chair wrote: >> 3.4. Slide Sharing >> >>Slides are often sent by email in advance of the meeting. >>WebEx allows the slides and desktop applications to be viewed by the >>remote participants. T

  1   2   >