Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Tue, 04 August 2020 16:56 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: 108attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 108attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF10B3A0D23 for <108attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 09:56:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 cYBZ8NIliRqJ for <108attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 09:56:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92C6B3A0D26 for <108attendees@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 09:56:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.42.101] (p5089ae91.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.174.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BLgs02RJ1zygh; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 18:56:52 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <4D72146D-47D4-441C-9C78-32CC20A8AC1C@fugue.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 18:56:51 +0200
Cc: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>, 108attendees@ietf.org
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 618253011.493535-db013ba1766e0786a80ee4158d8fa92f
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3EBAC01F-AB18-4118-9DA4-507B6DDA1C77@tzi.org>
References: <DF9553CF-3B73-43C3-9BCF-5160A1949EC7@gmail.com> <3b9cc8e5-a9f2-cc44-8fc5-6b7649e43343@cs.tcd.ie> <392F9FEA-BA4A-4E57-B80D-D5B288B9887A@jisc.ac.uk> <f86a44a9-1f0e-9619-1a01-d2f9c98a756a@huitema.net> <20200802025924.GH1772@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <3C71AFFA-E6D5-446C-B20A-C35B1EB8FFDF@nostrum.com> <m2eeoog2fr.wl-randy@psg.com> <BY5PR11MB4337767597051839FE069836C14D0@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <m2wo2fehuu.wl-randy@psg.com> <LO2P123MB21738E9CA388ED45F25072B9E64A0@LO2P123MB2173.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <fb7bd232-e946-a4cc-bc91-ca82fa582134@network-heretics.com> <a55d7ee7-95b4-5114-efc5-0155ed21aa72@joelhalpern.com> <4D72146D-47D4-441C-9C78-32CC20A8AC1C@fugue.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/108attendees/TH08l5_FAvFRoBVPTYnZn159K_8>
Subject: Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108
X-BeenThere: 108attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for IETF 108 attendees <108attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/108attendees>, <mailto:108attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/108attendees/>
List-Post: <mailto:108attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:108attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/108attendees>, <mailto:108attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2020 16:56:59 -0000

On 2020-08-04, at 18:30, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
> 
> The irony is that the tools to do this have been available for years in e.g. Zoom, but we do not use Zoom—we use MeetEcho. We use MeetEcho (I presume) because they work hard for us making in-person meetings sort-of work for online attendees, but it’s nowhere near the state of the art for fully-online meetings. The fact that we continue to use unsuitable tools is a real and major cost.

Can you explain how meetecho does not support removing microphone access?

(Of course, the person who was denied it can immediately snatch it back.  
Which may be exactly the right thing when the chair is out of their mind, which does happen.
Otherwise, what a great way to make an impression on your colleagues.)

I still fondly remember one episode when the late Tom Taylor denied microphone access to a repeat offender in a physical meeting room by his sheer authority of presence; that is of course hard to rebuild in a Web meeting.

Grüße, Carsten