Re: [111attendees] test

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Hi Chukwuka,

Have a look at the agenda and set it to "Local" where it says "Time zone: 
Meeting | Local | UTC":
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/111/agenda.html

To test connection: https://ws.conf.meetecho.com/conference/?group=testing
or for more details:
https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/111/ietf111-meetecho/

I assume you've already seen:
https://www.ietf.org/about/participate/get-started/

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 25-Jul-21 04:10, Chukwuka Odele wrote:
> Hello
> 
> 
> Has the meeting started  yet?
> 
> 
> How do I ( a first time attendee) attend?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks
> Chukwuka
> 
> On Sat, 24 Jul 2021 at 1:15 PM, Stewart Bryant <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     +1
> 
>     Stewart
> 
>>     On 23 Jul 2021, at 18:30, John C Klensin <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>     --On Friday, July 23, 2021 16:37 +0300 Lars Eggert
>>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>>     Hi,
>>>
>>>     On 2021-7-23, at 16:26, Toerless Eckert <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>     I for once think that it will only work well if the in-person
>>>>     meeting part would require attendees even when being together
>>>>     in a room to use their notebooks for discussions instead
>>>>     of having a physical line at a single microphone, so that
>>>>     there is more fairness between local and remote, but that
>>>>     was never really discussed on manycouches or
>>>>     picked up their documents.
>>>
>>>     that is because SHMOO is not chartered to work on guidelines
>>>     for hybrid meetings - it is chartered to work on guidelines
>>>     for fully online meetings. (I think I recall seeing that being
>>>     pointed out on the manycouches list.)
>>>
>>>     If community members would like to make proposals for hybrid
>>>     meetings, that can of course be done via individual I-Ds. But
>>>     SHMOO cannot begin work in this space without a rechartering.
>>
>>     But, Lars, moving up several thousand meters...
>>
>>     Independent of the more specific suggestions from several of the
>>     people you have copied and others, I think one of two things is
>>     true as a matter of logic.  Either (1) we are convinced that,
>>     realistically, fully in-person meetings are so far in the future
>>     that we should concentrate our energy on figuring out how to
>>     make all online meetings work as well as possible or (2) unless
>>     there is some likely flag day in the near further such that we
>>     can realistically plan on almost everyone coming back to
>>     "normal", in-person meetings all at once, we should be putting
>>     effort into figuring out how to do hybrid meetings well,
>>     starting with figuring out what "hybrid" means for us.
>>
>>     If the first case applies, spending time in SHMOO and/or in
>>     consultations by the LLC fine-tuning criteria for going back to
>>     in-person meetings or whether the "next" meeting will be in
>>     person, is a waste of time and resource.
>>
>>     Either way, it seems to me that, as IETF Chair and General Area
>>     AD, it seems to me, if the SHMOO charter and work are no longer
>>     a good match for the needs of the IETF, you have both the
>>     authority and responsibility to make that determination and to
>>     either shut things down or initiate a conversation about
>>     adjusting the charter so that things get onto a more useful
>>     track.  Or you could propose that people start working on a
>>     charter for a SHMHybrid WG that would compete with SHMOO for
>>     interested people, time, and resources (it is probably clear
>>     that I don't think much of that idea, but it is logically
>>     possible). 
>>
>>     It seems to me however that, unless you have a plan about how
>>     individual I-Ds --ones that the experience of the last 18 months
>>     suggests would be very controversial-- would reach consensus
>>     without a WG structure and be processed, is sort of missing the
>>     point.
>>
>>     thanks for listening,
>>       john
>>       (for identification in this context: still, I believe, 
the
>>     only AD to have decided that a WG was going sufficiently off the
>>     rails to have shut it down in the middle of the meeting -- no
>>     IESG member is being paid big bucks by the IETF to be popular,
>>     only to Do the Right Thing.)
>>
>>
>>>
>>>     Thanks,
>>>     Lars
>>>
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     111attendees mailing list
>>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/111attendees <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/111attendees>
> 
>     -- 
>     111attendees mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/111attendees <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/111attendees>
> 
> -- 
> Sent from my iPhone
>