[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
Ugh. Ignore that email below - I had sent it a few days ago but somehow it got
stuck in the outbox and never got sent, and the discussion is past that point
now so it doesn't matter.
-hadriel
On Aug 12, 2013, at 12:35 PM, Hadriel Kaplan hadriel.kap...@oracle.com wrote:
[personal
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
--On Tuesday, August 06, 2013 11:06 -0400 Andrew Feren
andr...@plixer.com wrote:
...
I think this sort of misses the point. At least for me as a
remote participant.
I'm not interested in arguing about whether slides are good or
bad. I am interested in following (and being involved) in
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
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
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 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
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
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
--On Sunday, August 04, 2013 07:27 -0400 Michael Richardson
m...@sandelman.ca 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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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 meeting
room a few minutes late --
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
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
--On Saturday, August 03, 2013 08:55 +0200 Olle E. Johansson
o...@edvina.net 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 meetings,
52 matches
Mail list logo
