Re: [90all] ACTION: Toronto Meeting Survey

Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@isoc.org> Thu, 21 August 2014 15:57 UTC

Return-Path: <rpelletier@isoc.org>
X-Original-To: 90all@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 90all@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4019E1A02E3 for <90all@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 08:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 nqKkTXfytqwe for <90all@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 08:57:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1blp0186.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.186]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50D4F1A023E for <90all@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 08:57:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BN1PR06MB232.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.242.215.142) by BN1PR06MB229.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.242.215.141) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1010.18; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 15:57:39 +0000
Received: from [192.168.0.10] (72.237.59.193) by BN1PR06MB232.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.242.215.142) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1010.18; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 15:57:36 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@isoc.org>
In-Reply-To: <06A9223A-FD9C-4021-9176-025F3491FE24@isoc.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:57:29 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <2F4D884F-D946-4209-B43D-2B776CAC68EB@isoc.org>
References: <06A9223A-FD9C-4021-9176-025F3491FE24@isoc.org>
To: <90all@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: [72.237.59.193]
X-ClientProxiedBy: DM2PR11CA0021.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (25.160.91.31) To BN1PR06MB232.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.242.215.142)
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;UriScan:;UriScan:;
X-Forefront-PRVS: 0310C78181
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(6049001)(377454003)(51704005)(24454002)(22804002)(199003)(189002)(81342001)(64706001)(80022001)(21056001)(101416001)(76482001)(83716003)(57306001)(46102001)(2351001)(99396002)(77156001)(50226001)(88136002)(4396001)(66066001)(76176999)(107886001)(106356001)(107046002)(110136001)(82746002)(15975445006)(92726001)(77982001)(50986999)(102836001)(81542001)(86362001)(117156001)(104166001)(77096002)(89996001)(85852003)(42186005)(87286001)(19580405001)(47776003)(85306004)(19580395003)(83072002)(31966008)(50466002)(83322001)(36756003)(62966002)(105586002)(33656002)(93916002)(20776003)(79102001)(95666004)(92566001)(74662001)(87976001)(74502001)(104396001); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BN1PR06MB232; H:[192.168.0.10]; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;
X-OriginatorOrg: isoc.org
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/90all/qVko3zwSI-AmW5aEexWhQeLV7jI
Subject: Re: [90all] ACTION: Toronto Meeting Survey
X-BeenThere: 90all@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <90all.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/90all>, <mailto:90all-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/90all/>
List-Post: <mailto:90all@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:90all-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/90all>, <mailto:90all-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 15:57:45 -0000

All;

Some Survey results as of 18 August are below.

215 folks have taken the survey of the more than 1,200 who attended.

We would be interested in your opinions.  https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/P6RHVN6

You can follow the survey results here: 
https://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=dm8zMiZnzhOt_2bkRM_2fTU2yvaUy3UqIVl82jPqdmnYXN8_3d

Ray

Some results as of 18 August:

75% would return to the Toronto Fairmont

38% don’t support changing the lunch period
41% don’t care
22% support

52% think a theme for BnB adds value

Q.  In your view, what should or could we provide (in terms of technology) to improve the remote 
user experience for remote participation?

Answers:

the clip-on microphones are useless for most people. Can we just have mic in a stand for the speaker. 
Not only does that keep the speaker in one place (easier for meetecho camera!!!), but it eliminates the 
tuning, attachment, etc. and let's have 2x wireless mic to pass around the room for comments.

plan for two-way audio (and video if possible) in all meeting rooms via meetecho so that remote 
participants can participate and interact more directly with the room. May need some sort of mic 
queue control within Meetecho so that folks can join the queue virtually. 
Also, might be useful to have one or more telepresence booths set up so that remote participants 
can book them to have virtual "hallway conversations" with local participants.

I may be significantly dumber than the average IETF attendee, but I found having different pages 
with somewhat overlapping functions kind of confusing schedules page, vs tools page, vs individual 
meeting agenda, vs I don't remember). The Android app was also disappointing. My complaint is 
basically that checking out what was happening, what the agendas were, what the draft slides were, 
and (remotely) how to connect in wasn't quite as smooth as I would have liked it to be. I'm still somewhat 
new at IETF, and IETF is way better than most other standards organizations that I interact with, but maybe 
the bar is higher?

Across-the-board Meetecho is great. We _really_ need to do a better job with audio and provide a way for 
remote participates to queue, in order for it to be really satisfactory, though.

An audio-video bridge plumbed into the sound board and a dedicated projector that allowed remote 
participants to speak and be seen without competing with slides for screen space.

the clip-on microphones are useless for most people. Can we just have mic in a stand for the speaker. 
Not only does that keep the speaker in one place (easier for meetecho camera!!!), but it eliminates the tuning, 
attachment, etc. and let's have 2x wireless mic to pass around the room for comments.

Full MeetEcho all the way.

On Aug 15, 2014, at 2:05 PM, Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@isoc.org>; wrote:

> All;
> 
> Do you want to return to the Toronto Fairmont Royal York?  
> 
> Should we experiment with moving the beginning of lunch from 11:30 to 12:30 in Hawaii?
> 
> https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/P6RHVN6
> 
> We do care about your opinions and make changes every meeting based on your feedback.  
> 
> Thanks
> Ray
> IAD
> _______________________________________________
> 90all mailing list
> 90all@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/90all