Re: Remote participation fees

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Sun, 15 February 2015 02:11 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 848241A008F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:11:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 nKMwMY5DIQpy for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:11:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 259DE1A0687 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:11:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06C4FDA0127 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 02:11:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-03.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4E3C53E07A; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:11:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.20.107] (71.233.43.215) by CAS-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (64.89.235.66) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:11:22 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: Remote participation fees
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150214225128.GS14296@verdi>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 21:11:18 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <B754B188-1FC2-4E6B-B374-F3B882D99742@nominum.com>
References: <54DE7F09.8030500@gmail.com> <C5FC0DB6-82F8-4C38-ABFD-D5D9A6E65933@isoc.org.ec> <54DE90C6.6030609@gmail.com> <E39AF4E0-58AB-4249-8A37-3D1CD2D5A691@gmail.com> <54DE9844.1010807@gmail.com> <61FBB27B-4EF3-40A0-8981-00EB89698295@isoc.org.ec> <B90F5E29-06C5-41D1-9F31-1BE42382995F@gmail.com> <CABmDk8=YPZ1W2tTOqP23U2PFVLoDh-3+wwmcA8mpta-Y05op2A@mail.gmail.com> <54DFBAF6.30409@cs.tcd.ie> <71F05D3C-95F1-4424-B6AA-49EBCCB7065A@isoc.org> <20150214225128.GS14296@verdi>
To: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: [71.233.43.215]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/DfX_inoPIKrVJVVdXfygAaUeVFs>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 02:11:28 -0000

On Feb 14, 2015, at 5:51 PM, John Leslie <john@jlc.net>; wrote:
>   Is there anybody besides the Meetecho folks whose task it is to
> "make it work"? Is there anybody _including_ the Meetecho folks who
> has the ability to arrange similar priority at the mike to that of
> on-site participants?

A tremendous amount of work goes on behind the scenes to make this work, not just the meetecho folks.   I remember reporting a problem in a meeting and having Alexa show up five minutes later checking to see if it was fixed, and I know that other folks from AMS and from the NOC work hard on this.