Re: [103attendees] A/V in Bangkok (was: Re: [Thanks, Bangkok !)

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Fri, 09 November 2018 20:07 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: 103attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 103attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65A8B130DC3 for <103attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 12:07:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p37hl__jcDAx for <103attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 12:07:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72b.google.com (mail-qk1-x72b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABAF3127148 for <103attendees@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 12:07:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72b.google.com with SMTP id y16so3807232qki.7 for <103attendees@ietf.org>; Fri, 09 Nov 2018 12:07:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=BW6DKPo/3nEMu/5rlNFDaZ6caw57vQiK+z1lsbPYR4A=; b=wN/gRQKIjL8V6QsmergUdRHgOUX4XiZOrjjGl16rVt649kXKyEsSnrnJs+hQ1rTL+m a9PJ3xcZRL3M/hFreRQqUl+85L7F4XlfBccdbyKFyE9t5wm2XLN9UcLIzdbNWZC//xsB U+LfJfZd3LiQCEKDjqyVz4VEwMBPt6CsdXkP+KnohU53rKzDE7uGW4xLkKl4vwC65Tof +DbKoUe5YYndLcH2AcaMWm5k5kqGCAaFiKGWIxsAHDKfdPwS1QBc0f6wNqtx66LtFAFT bTY7fhn/YKb6MPTriE2A/yuhcj9Vjd7crWtnc7h48BkjC9uJ+T+mZHzCQmr4OHytxPLn GwYg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=BW6DKPo/3nEMu/5rlNFDaZ6caw57vQiK+z1lsbPYR4A=; b=Pil12pvwhMZ87Hd0Yoefo1ziYIeyxSY2dkSOoCFvYUi5Mr9y6kBLFQzGxY3cjw+ahm 68LUnMNMtc+0XH41RQUwWqlXrbN2B/OcLL/AvjMStzkLT2Zp7XO4HKBPVkli7sg4Eg+c y9zq/qJdSyWwDpc6VWxpHxY2uo2qhfQq1MNNx4QjLW3nrIn7lwU2qwdlJ8LKMplAfX1O lthIb8Q/VtlCxwSvbs2e4Tjrz+GdBWesj137QIQVEc/f7zfrh/tnYuzZx/b4DdE5nT6S lYXCNzU8y6YQ2AorXL6W7BnczrZ6ZfewfMp4cQWqazwFNR4TXfaK6OXPGK1pyHDK1Gfo chHw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gL/KXGgtSGQ2OqqQoCLKUAX0d72yRatGpGW2UOTUwDXgcldDN13 LWTZxnI/SDyAszuKWuJRo2+kGfbJiAIgojylZ/tW+Im51nM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5diwVuKdcXtspOvqJqi595GSdgGI6P6w/AhvUG30MEMn7uEYhOYw+FFOjOh4eBzIYG5CH2iMgSlcDEZpueJfz8=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:9ce:: with SMTP id 197mr9415404qkj.164.1541794045285; Fri, 09 Nov 2018 12:07:25 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <3F80FD28-C7D9-4C72-96FA-1ACD60A3A4B3@ackl.io> <7C9CE065-947B-435F-A8DA-FDDA0C3B1DBB@tzi.org> <E1443D6EC0DFCDCC464FD64C@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <E1443D6EC0DFCDCC464FD64C@PSB>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 15:06:47 -0500
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1kBfhZH0+0Tjo+ps0c5P19k-C4pzKSeR6xR721JUSSWtA@mail.gmail.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, 103attendees@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000062f0e0057a40e605"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/103attendees/bi5qMNbvEmFmg0C4Y0SwdTlIsBA>
Subject: Re: [103attendees] A/V in Bangkok (was: Re: [Thanks, Bangkok !)
X-BeenThere: 103attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list of IETF 103 attendees that have opted in on this list <103attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/103attendees>, <mailto:103attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/103attendees/>
List-Post: <mailto:103attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:103attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/103attendees>, <mailto:103attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2018 20:07:29 -0000

There were a lot of cases, particularly early on, when remote presenters'
audio clipped badly, making it painful to sit in the room.   That seemed to
improve over the course of the week, but the gain on remote presenters in
every single remote presentation I heard was still too high, again making
it painful to sit in the room.

Quite a few times when someone wanted to comment remotely they couldn't,
because their microphone wasn't working.   This wasn't necessarily
meetecho's fault in a direct way, but we have to figure out how to get this
right if we're serious about remote participation.

On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 10:29 AM John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:

> Carsten (and others),
>
> For the benefit of those of us who are remote and for anyone
> concerned about remote participation, could you be more precise
> about the AV issues you saw.   I have never found the Meetecho
> people and network/NOC staff and volunteers to be anything but
> responsive, often astonishingly so -- the exact opposite of
> "sloppy" -- and we don't thank them often enough.  On the other
> hand, we have had problems in the past when hotel staff run the
> AV equipment and don't take it quite as seriously as we do.  I'm
> aware of at least one incident of that during this meeting when
> a probably-important comment was made into a floor microphone
> that was not transmitting.
>
> This is important, IMO.   Many years ago, we concluded that
> audio feeds, IM, and, later archiving of meetings was important
> enough to us that we couldn't rely on hotel networks.  As I
> understand it, if a venue told us that their facilities and
> staff were required to be used and that our people did not have
> direct control over them, the people in the meeting site
> selection process decided to find another venue.  As our
> dependency on remote participation has risen and our presumed
> commitment to it has as well, are we at the point at which we
> need the same policy for A/V operations: The facility is asked
> during the site selection process whether we will be able to
> operate it ourselves. If the answer is "no", we move on and, if
> it is "yes", that goes into the contract?
>
> I know this list is not the best place to ask the question, but
> it is the one on which the people with the most direct
> experience of the meeting are presumably hanging out.
>
>     john
>
>
> --On Friday, November 9, 2018 15:44 +0700 Carsten Bormann
> <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
>
> >...
> > The biggest problem (relatively speaking, because it never was
> > a big problem) was the slightly sloppy attitude of the AV
> > people.
> >...
>
>
>
> --
> 103attendees mailing list
> 103attendees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/103attendees
>