--> Aaron Falk writes: >On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 11:23:06AM -0700, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote: >> >> The advantage of multicast vs. tape-and-archive is the real-time >> aspect for the viewer. However, this is rarely, rarely used. If it >> turns out that switching from multicast to tape-and-archive can get >> more camera operators in more rooms, that would be a win for more WGs. > >This is a great idea! I think I've attended about fifteen IETF's now >and at each one I've been to many multicast sessions but I've never, >NEVER heard a live question from a multicast viewer. Now, perhaps >viewers have been posting questions to their repective mail lists >(I've never seen that, either). But, it seems to me that history >indicates the record is much more valuable than the live interaction.
It's not common, but I have seen questions passed from remote participants to the meeting floor by the Mbone session operators, and I have had people email me questions to be asked whilst I've been chairing a session (which brings us back to the utility of wireless access in meeting rooms...) But, I agree that having a recording of the session is often more useful than the live multicast. Cheers, Colin
