Randy Bush <[email protected]> wrote: > > i also think that much of the discussion i have read is all waaaaaay to > specific and detailed.
Were we starting from scratch, I'd agree. But this is a commissioned report, and I think the level of detail is appropriate for a commissioned report, although there needs to be an indication of lower priority for some things it lists. > let me pick on john for an example No problem! > John Leslie wrote: >> - the audio fed to a remote participant SHOULD exclude his own voice, >> but enable him to hear any questions raised by what he says. >> (This probably needs wordsmithing -- the extent of excluding his >> own voice varies greatly depending on how he hears it.) > > i suspect that what you mean is that the audio technology should be good > quality and damp feedback in both directions etc. No -- strangely enough, I meant what I said, which had no mention of audio quality or feedback. I meant that there is a need to exclude the voice of the remote participant (which will likely be done by muting); but that this must not prevent the remote participant from actually hearing questions which may be raised. I did not mean he has to hear them in actual real-time: that may prove impractical. But he must be aware of them in near-real-time, and should be able to hear them in their entirety. > but why are we even at that level of detail. The IAOC has determined that improved remote participation is a priority. (I agree strongly, if you haven't guessed.) It makes no sense to demand improved participation and then refuse to define what you mean by "improved participation". > i think that when we say we want function X that it is safe to > assume we want high quality X. That is not how procurement works. As a matter of fact, it's not clear we demand audio quality any higher than telephone service of 40 years ago. (That question may deserve some consideration, but it's not on the floor right now.) > i think a good exercise would be to write two sets of bullets that fill > less than one page that list short term functions we need and could > realistically expect in a year and then long term wishful ideas. and > expect that the latter will change a lot as we learn. Were we starting from scratch, that would be an excellent start. > put this thing on a diet! Much though I admire a killer-instinct for the unnecessary word, that's not what we need right now. (IMHO... YMMV...) -- 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
