Re: Radical Solution for remote participants

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Fri, 16 August 2013 01:48 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0D2C11E80F9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Aug 2013 18:48:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c8lPLjOsQmmy for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Aug 2013 18:48:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B14E11E8235 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Aug 2013 18:48:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.62] (unknown [118.209.151.245]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1310522E1F3; Thu, 15 Aug 2013 21:48:18 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
Subject: Re: Radical Solution for remote participants
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <272672C2-F883-4364-A493-FB32FC0DCC17@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 11:48:15 +1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D60BC4FA-F146-466B-97FB-C0AEAC9E6FBA@mnot.net>
References: <CAKe6YvPb2byEp7ic_J+CR-8UBycepKQ8uszOchXTk6RqehbBeg@mail.gmail.com> <OFF816F7EA.E9F0330D-ON85257BC5.0051D5AD-85257BC5.0053BC91@csc.com> <CAKe6YvN6DSDJGU-MDtMPce_TM=639rorMAdnr-vtCwC+2AUnng@mail.gmail.com> <OF2FB45330.E1DCDB32-ON85257BC5.0056B5ED-85257BC5.0056EEC6@csc.com> <20130812200621.GB68553@verdi> <272672C2-F883-4364-A493-FB32FC0DCC17@gmail.com>
To: Douglas Otis <doug.mtview@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Cc: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 01:48:32 -0000

On 13/08/2013, at 11:00 AM, Douglas Otis <doug.mtview@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 1) Ensure exact digital interfaces driving projectors are fully available remotely.  

That would be fantastic, if feasible. Much simpler than sharing through software.


> 2) Ensure Audio access requires an identified request via XMPP prior to enabling either a remote or local audio feed.

Hm.

> 
> 3) RFI tags could facilitate enabling local audio feed instead of an identified request via XMPP.

Could be quite interesting; many conferences now provide attendees with RFID tags...

> 
> 4) In the event of the local venue loosing Internet access, the device regulating A/V presentations must be able to operate in a virtual mode where only remote participants are permitted to continue the meeting proceedings.

That seems… extreme.

> 5) Important participants should plan for alternative modes of Internet access to remain part of the proceedings.

Not exactly practical.

> 
> 6) Develop a simple syntax used on XMPP sessions to:
> 1) signify a request to speak on X 
> 2) withdraw a request to speak on X
> 3) signify support of Y
> 4) signify non-support of Y
> 5) signal when a request has been granted or revoked.  For local participants this could be in the form of a red or green light at their microphone. 

The W3C does much of this already with IRC bots, e.g.:
  http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot.html

(also can pick a scribe, track an agenda, etc.)


> 7) Develop a control panel managed by chairs or their proxies that consolidate and sequence requests and log support and nonsupport indications and the granting of requests.

See above (I think).

> 
> 8) Chairs should be able to act as proxies for local participants lacking access to XMPP. 

Not practical, unless they delegate.

> 
> 9) Chairs should have alternative Internet access independent of that of the venue's.

Seems extreme.

> 
> 10) Establish a reasonable fee to facilitate remote participants who receive credit for their participation equal to that of being local.
> 
> 11) The device regulating A/V presentations must drive both the video and audio portions of the presentations.  A web camera in a room is a very poor replacement.
> 
> 12) All video information in the form of slides and text must be available from the Internet prior to the beginning of the meeting.

Cheers,


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/