Hi,
+1
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 1:59 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> Maybe I am missing something.
> The reason we have face-to-face meetings is because there is value in such
> meetings that can not reasonably be achieved in other ways.
> I would like remote participation to be as good as possible.
On 08/16/2013 04:59 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Conversely, until the technology gets that good, we must not penalize
the face-to-face meeting for failures of the technology.
Unfortunately, we've been doing that for many years, e.g. by forcing
speakers to queue up at the microphones, and by arr
Adding to my own comments -
Beware of technological solutions that require software on the remote
user's end, or network communications.
Many employers have strict policies about what is allowed to be installed
on company computers.
Furthermore, some have draconian firewalls. For instance,
e changed into clothes, I don't think I want
video input, where remote participants can be seen
> as well as heard. )
Janet
ietf-boun...@ietf.org wrote on 08/16/2013 08:07:56 AM:
> From: Hadriel Kaplan
> To: John Leslie
> Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List
> Date: 08/16/201
Yes, that had also occurred to me. :)
It does cost money though... if even for just additional equipment, tech
support and administration, and a separate presentation screen in the rooms.
And it's one more thing for the folks who run the meetings to worry about, plan
for, deal with, etc. - an
Well, we just had a technical session about Real Time web.
This seems to me like the perfect application to show and eat own dog
food.
Regards,
as
On 8/16/13 9:07 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> The next step up from our current jabber-scribe model is to have audio input
On Aug 13, 2013, at 6:24 AM, John Leslie wrote:
> There are a certain number of Working Groups where it's standard
> operating practice to ignore any single voice who doesn't attend an
> IETF week to defend his/her postings.
I don't see that happening in the WGs I attend - when remote partici
--On Friday, August 16, 2013 04:59 -0400 "Joel M. Halpern"
wrote:
> Maybe I am missing something.
> The reason we have face-to-face meetings is because there is
> value in such meetings that can not reasonably be achieved in
> other ways.
> I would like remote participation to be as good as pos
Maybe I am missing something.
The reason we have face-to-face meetings is because there is value in
such meetings that can not reasonably be achieved in other ways.
I would like remote participation to be as good as possible. But if
would could achieve "the same as being there" then we should s
On 13/08/2013, at 11:00 AM, Douglas Otis wrote:
>
> 1) Ensure exact digital interfaces driving projectors are fully available
> remotely.
That would be fantastic, if feasible. Much simpler than sharing through
software.
> 2) Ensure Audio access requires an identified request via XMPP prio
--On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 06:24 -0400 John Leslie
wrote:
> Dave Cridland wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Douglas Otis
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 10) Establish a reasonable fee to facilitate remote
>>> participants who receive credit for their participation
>>> equal to that of being
Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Douglas Otis wrote:
>
>> 10) Establish a reasonable fee to facilitate remote participants who
>> receive credit for their participation equal to that of being local.
> >
>
> I understand the rationale here, but I'm nervous about any mo
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Douglas Otis wrote:
> 10) Establish a reasonable fee to facilitate remote participants who
> receive credit for their participation equal to that of being local.
>
I understand the rationale here, but I'm nervous about any movement toward
a kind of "pay-to-play s
13 matches
Mail list logo
