Re: [97attendees] Thanks for Seoul (Re: Food poisoning)

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

Brian, Toerless,

Did you run the self-test on the Meetecho login page?  It should
at least be able to identify those problems?   I think it should
be a little easier to find, e.g., from the IETF Meetecho and
Remote Participation pages, and have already suggested that.  A
test room might not be a bad idea, but I'm not convinced that it
would do more than the existing self-test does.


--On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 13:35 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>> Brian Carpenter had
>> browser issues hat he fixed somehow (forgot how)
> 
> I disabled FlashBlock. Apparently it could equally be named
> MeetechoBlock. I rediscover this each time I attend remotely.
> 
> What would be really really good would be a test room one
> can join at any time to verify setup. Make it, say, an area
> in the IETF Lounge and it could also serve for informal
> meetings.
> 
> Regards
>    Brian
> 
> On 22/11/2016 12:51, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>> Indeed: +1. First time i attended remotely. Meetecho worked
>> really well even though i forgot to register as remote WG
>> chair upfront. And my wallet was happy as well. And i was
>> lucky with the TZ (PST listening into asia time is a great
>> late shift for most sessions). I totally missed the food
>> poisoning though (not)!
>> 
>> One suggestion: I couldn't find a cross-conference meetecho
>> wiki page. Instead it seems there is a separate one for every
>> meeting.
>> 
>> Might make sense to have one where participants and meetecho
>> folks can collect insight into common issues/fixes. Eg: Brian
>> Carpenter had browser issues hat he fixed somehow (forgot
>> how), i had issues on a bad-bw public access point where
>> browser A totally didn't work, but browser B did work very
>> well, etc. pp..
>> 
>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 04:35:58PM -0500, John C Klensin
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Let me add thanks for the excellent remote participation
>>> support, notably with Meetecho.  As with everything else,
>>> there are still areas that could be improved (the multiple
>>> non-overlapping agendas and failure to get meeting materials
>>> for particular sessions posted early enough are at the top
>>> of my list at the moment) but this meeting was clearly "Best
>>> yet" by a significant margin.    So thanks to the local
>>> facilities, the Meetecho team, the NOC and network team, the
>>> Secretariat, and Ray in no particular order ... job really
>>> well done.
>>> 
>>>     john
>...