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

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Fri, 09 November 2018 15:29 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 A6BDC12DDA3 for <103attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 07:29:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 2S4Kro2qcPNM for <103attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 07:29:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AFE812D4E9 for <103attendees@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 07:29:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1gL8if-000AqY-IY; Fri, 09 Nov 2018 10:29:13 -0500
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2018 10:29:07 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
cc: 103attendees@ietf.org
Message-ID: <E1443D6EC0DFCDCC464FD64C@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <7C9CE065-947B-435F-A8DA-FDDA0C3B1DBB@tzi.org>
References: <3F80FD28-C7D9-4C72-96FA-1ACD60A3A4B3@ackl.io> <7C9CE065-947B-435F-A8DA-FDDA0C3B1DBB@tzi.org>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/103attendees/freTFnXBmCHlbcr7bQklVUZD25E>
Subject: [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 15:29:17 -0000

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.  
>...