Better non-meeting progress, was Re: [73attendees] Attendance by country
Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> Sat, 06 December 2008 13:38 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 366563A6861; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 05:38:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A881D3A6861; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 05:38:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.578
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.022, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=0.044]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RyrVhSOhwBUp; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 05:38:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sequoia.muada.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:1af8:2:5::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13FA43A683E; Sat, 6 Dec 2008 05:38:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.16.1.6] (53564558.cable.casema.nl [83.86.69.88]) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id mB6Db1hM027653 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 6 Dec 2008 14:37:33 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com)
Message-Id: <9C4E8359-94D2-428A-89BE-7593FE778D19@muada.com>
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <C80ADC57CB3BB64B94A9954A816306C5F792CD@STNTEXCH11.cis.neustar.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2)
Subject: Better non-meeting progress, was Re: [73attendees] Attendance by country
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 09:49:38 +0100
References: <0016361e7d947b974e045d3cb4d6@google.com><58A8A797-AB7A-4A23-BA2E-614B468E848F@fugue.com> <18744.11091.630143.477735@sbrim-mbp.local> <C80ADC57CB3BB64B94A9954A816306C5F7929C@STNTEXCH11.cis.neustar.com> <8328F83A-6034-483C-BA0B-E2229702351A@fugue.com> <C80ADC57CB3BB64B94A9954A816306C5F792CD@STNTEXCH11.cis.neustar.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2)
Cc: 73attendees@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes"
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
On the 73attendees list we had a discussion about making face-to-face meetings unnecessary through better technology. In my opinion, that will be extremely hard to the point of being impossible, for various reasons. (See the 73attendees discussion for a bunch of them.) However, a more useful way forward would be to make remote participation work a whole lot better. At one point we had multicast video for a couple of tracks, which didn't work very well. Now we have audo for all sessions, which works much better (although when the audio quality is bad it takes a lot of energy to listen and the lag makes reacting problematic). Jabber came along before we had audio everywhere, giving rise to the notion that someone should type in whatever happens in the meeting. I think that use of jabber is problematic, but using jabber as a back channel for additional discussion without interrupting the speaker only works on occasion because too few people participate in jabber, or participate in that way. And we don't use jabber anywhere in our process. I think there's an opportunity there once we figure out how to use it well. But that's just the state of affairs today. Bandwidth and hardware are now cheap enough that we could revist video in the form of unicast streaming, although that may take more person hours. Or maybe we can create some other way to allow remote participants to see the slides "live". I assume there are solutions for this, although they may not be compatible with the quaint operating systems some participants choose to use. Maybe we can hack something together ourselves? Export slides to images or HTML, use some web magic to have the current one on a web page, a volunteer triggers advancing the slides? Something that I'd like to see is a way for remote participants to talk back. I know a system that can do this called Talk Shoe exists that allows people to make home brew call in radio shows. If it works well enough, we could even do away with microphones in the meetings and people can just speak into their laptops. However, making progress here probably requires more than just volunteer work. Would it make sense to charge a fee for remote participation? At first, the extra money could be used to improve the tools for this. If it them becomes popular it could become a new revenue stream for the IETF. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Better non-meeting progress, was Re: [73attendees… Iljitsch van Beijnum