On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 7:27 AM, John Leslie <[email protected]> wrote: > Marshall Eubanks <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:07 PM, Fred Baker <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Dec 5, 2011, at 8:52 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: >>> >>>> Next up: interim meetings. Some of the tools that we are talking >>>> about for remote participation will also be useful for WG interim >>>> meetings. Some interim meetings are face-to-face with remote >>>> participants, others are completely virtual. > > In my experience, I haven't yet seen a face-to-face-with-remote > meeting where the remote folk were real "participants". I believe they > do benefit, but they speak very little and the face-to-face folks > often forget they're there. Actual spoken exchanges aren't smooth. > > The completely-virtual meetings tend to work better, especially if > the participants are familiar with the tools. IESG telechats, for one > example, run pretty smoothly now that everyone's used to WebEx. Of > course, it helps that it's usually obvious who will speak next... > >>>> It would be useful to hear the experience of WG chairs in setting >>>> up the remote participation aspect of interim WG meetings. >>> >>> Well, I can tell you of one that was held entirely virtually. >>> It was v4v6tran. The chair was Tina Tsou, but I set up a webex for >>> it, and we had a number (on the order of 40-50 as I recall) by >>> telephone/skype/whatever. > > That's quite a few... How many of them actually spoke? > >>> Having everyone virtual and having the chair run the meeting mostly >>> worked. > > :^) > >>> I can also tell of a plenary meeting with virtual presenters; v6ops >>> in stockholm. Again, webex. Wes Beebee presented on what is now >>> RFC 6204. I would say that it partially worked; it was far from >>> seamless. > > I'm not familiar with that particular one... > > Generally, such arrangements work OK if the presentation never is > interrupted for questions (until the presenter asks for questions). > Actual question/answer portions aren't as smooth as in-person, but > they are workable. > > The fundamental problem, IMHO, is the half-duplex nature of the > audio to/from the remote participant. (Full-duplex is never tried > because the echo is too disconcerting.) The cues that we're used to > in face-to-face meetings get entirely garbled. > >> We are currently setting up an entirely virtual interim for MBONED, >> probably for early January. > > I'll be interested in how it works. > > (BTW, Marshall and I will probably be doing F2F+Remote for CLUE > in February, arranged by Mary Barnes -- eventually I hope CLUE will > improve on the F2F+R experience.) >
Yes, and I plan on actually to going the meeting if at all possible. I think that F2F offers a lot. Note well : We could, today, do a really phenomenal technical job hosting virtual meetings with telepresence. The technology exists, today. The question is, what can we afford and what fits well with our operations. Even if (say) Polycom and Cisco donated use of telepresence rooms and network time, it would still mean that you would have to find the nearest room and be there at the indicated time. If that is a 20 km trip at 2:00 AM many might chose to stay home and use Webex. Regards Marshall > -- > John Leslie <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html. https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
