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

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
>