On Tue Jan 24 17:52:03 2012, Paul Hoffman wrote:
[[ Changed the subject line to be useful. ]]
On Jan 24, 2012, at 4:20 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> What I see is that if we could better formalize the jabber-to-mic
> process, such as by giving that person a *MIC*, and/or seating
them at
> the front, or making it a function of one of the co-chairs, then
it
> seems that a lot of the issues go away. Also most of the issues
where
> the presenter and/or conversation has gone forward.
I'm inclined to agree with Michael (speaking - or rather not - as a
remote participant at a number of IETFs, now).
Is this assumption actually reasonable? Can we somehow make the
jabber-to-mic process good enough to not need remote attendee's
voice in the room?
I don't know for certain, but I think there's a few issues with the
mic line for remote participants that can be solved, and solving 90%
of the problems would be a great thing to try.
The only things that change by letting me speak in the room are:
a) I will no longer be channelled by an American voice.
b) I won't be able to get the channeller to play Moe to my Bart
anymore.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:[email protected] - xmpp:[email protected]
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html.
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
