Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities

[<[e-mail]>]

Guys,

Sorry for the top post.  (Running out the door!)   

There were a number of volunteers in the Chicago IETF to help revise / recreate from scratch a remote hubs draft.   I was busy with other tasks but will get this going next week.

If anyone else would like to volunteer to help, pls let me know.     I have a feeling that we will end up doing virtual group work meetings every two weeks to get / review input.

Thanks,

Nalini Elkins
CEO and Founder
Inside Products, Inc.
www.insidethestack.com
[phone]

--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 4/14/17, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:

 Subject: Re: IAOC requesting input on (potential) meeting cities
 To: [e-mail], "IETF" <[e-mail]>
 Date: Friday, April 14, 2017, 9:32 AM
 
 On 04/14/2017 05:11 PM, Dave
 Crocker wrote:
 > On 4/14/2017 9:04 AM,
 Fernando Gont wrote:
 >> FWIW, for the
 developing world, remote participation has possibly
 always
 >> been a necessity.
 > 
 > 
 > Indeed.  I hadn't understood how
 extensive this had become until seeing:
 >
 
 >    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-elkins-ietf-remote-hubs-00#section-3
 
 I haven't checked the I-D.
 However, no matter what it says, there's
 remote participation with meet echo, without
 hubs. For instance, I
 participated (and
 presented) remotely in two wgs during the Chicago
 IETF, without "attending" any hub.
 
 
 
 > However, there is a significant difference
 between their current mode of
 >
 integration with the 'main' venue site, versus what
 we will need to have
 > remote sites able
 to have nearly seamless participation in sessions.
 
 What I tried to note is that
 the situation for part of the participants
 is such that remote participation is already
 necessary.
 
 >From the pov
 of participants of North America or Europe, this *might*
 be
 different and the current situation might
 be a game changer. But for us
 in latin
 maerica, remote participation has always been a need, even
 if
 we managed to attend one or more meetings
 (that's kind of like "the
 exception
 to the rule").
 
 
 > Some of this is functional, such as a
 single queue for everyone wanting
 > to
 speak, no matter where they are.
 
 Agreed.
 
 
 >  Some of this is much more robust
 > performance and reliability (within
 obvious networking limitations.)
 > 
 > I suspect the easiest bit will be improved
 usability design, since the
 > Meetecho
 folk tend to start with reasonable design and make
 improvements
 > quickly, as experience is
 gained.  But yes, from some comments over the
 > last two meetings, there's probably
 room for that improvement.
 
 I must say that modulo issues with the network
 (which were probably
 local on my side), the
 experience was great, and I must say that the
 meetecho folks provided "online" help
 in a very timely manner (thanks!).
 
 
 There's room for
 improvements.. but in some cases they seem to be more
 about integration of local and remote
 participants, than with "bugs" in
 the tools themselves. e.g., as you've
 correctly noted, it would be great
 if there
 was a means for managing the mic queue, such that
 there's a
 single queue, that includes
 remote participants.
 
 Thanks!
 
 Cheers,
 -- 
 Fernando Gont
 SI6
 Networks
 e-mail: [e-mail]
 PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4
 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492