Russ Housley <[email protected]> wrote: > > I want to make sure that this represents the community consensus.
I haven't screamed yet... but I might... > My summary: > > (1) We have good audio from the room to the remote participant. > Keep doing that. Umm... predictable delay, please! > (2) IM-to-mic is working pretty well too. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. "Sometimes" is not acceptable. > Keep doing that, but there might be some improvements that could be made. There are a lot of improvements that could be made. But I'd recommend that we put audio-from-remote-presenter as a fairly high priority, and allow WGCs to enable remote-audio for any remote speaker if they can't make "channeling" dependable. In any case, the WGC needs to know when there is a remote participant wanting to be channeled. > (3) Don't do audio to the meeting room for anyone except a remote > presenter for quite some time. "Quite some time" is a bad target. Most in-person attendees dislike dissociated voices. We understand. Most remote participants will be happy with "channeling" if it is timely. But there are cases where some back-and-forth is needed -- and we should aim for something acceptable to in-person attendees in the one-to-two year timeframe. (What we don't mean to set as an at-all-high priority is the expectation that _anyone_ can ask _any_ question that comes to mind by remote audio.) BTW, Google Hangout was working quite nicely (once we got it working at all) for RTCWEB this week... -- 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
