Re: A different approach to remote meetings / Mesh videos

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 1:23 AM Yoav Nir <[e-mail]> wrote:

> So “Who here has read the drafts” will be replaced by “Who here has
> watched the videos” ?
>

Yes!


> Phil, you are really good at public speaking. You make compelling and
> entertaining videos.
>

Thanks.


> Most of us are not able to make videos that good.
>

People can hire me to make their videos for them... ?


> Additionally, videos are far less interactive than a presentation unless
> you expect the technical discussion to happen on the youtube comments.
> Which it totally shouldn’t.
>

The primary purpose of these videos is recruitment of people, businesses,
stakeholders, etc. to work on the Mesh. Hence the choice of YouTube as the
venue.

I don't propose to use YouTube long term, or at least not in its current
form. One option is to wrap YouTube with a separate comment forum. That
means we can still make use of all the really cool YouTube features like
transcripts and speeding up or slowing down the videos.

Long term, I want everything, *everything* end-to-end secure. I want all
the data on the Web server encrypted including the comments and no way that
a breach of the key service causes disclosure of the contents. So we will
be building a comment forum anyway for confidential and classified
application. Think, discussion on a response to an RFP or discussion of a
security breach with law enforcement and/or counter-intelligence sitting in.


> And then there’s the effect of the technical discussion. It’s fairly easy
> to update slides or drafts. If the group has decided to ditch CBOR in favor
> of DER, that’s fixing a slide or two plus a paragraph in the draft. The
> video, you’d probably need to reshoot several minutes of it if you’re good
> at planning and editing videos, or reshoot the whole thing if you’re not.
>

It might well be that the scheme works best for what I am using it for
which is a green field site proposal. I am asking the question 'how would
we build a user centric PKI with no legacy commitments at all'. So I have
to start with a presentation of a lot of new stuff.

The more usual standards issue is, 'how do we add feature X to the existing
systems'. And that is actually harder technically. Particularly if it
involves SMTP or DNS which have severe legacy deployment expectations and
constraints.


On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 12:38 PM Scott Brim <[e-mail]> wrote:

> There's a reason why "flipped classroom" teaching strategies have taken
> off. They allow better use of face-to-face time.
>

That is the idea of course, work the issues list. Spend more time in
discussion and less in information transfer.


> Once upon a time in IntArea WG we set a policy that nothing should be
> brought to the physical meeting unless it had been discussed on the list
> and we were clear on the issues that needed f2f discussion. It didn't last
> long. People like to talk in person.
>

There is always the problem that often folk don't realize what the issues
are until the meeting starts. Which is what the discussions are often
about.