Re: Thinking laterally

Mary Barnes <> Fri, 27 February 2015 15:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2C601ACD52 for <>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:44:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3xS7YxBXgtkV for <>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:43:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E29221ACD4A for <>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:43:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by lbvp9 with SMTP id p9so18128143lbv.0 for <>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:43:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=9tMkEfE+LhT9gO0dUgChde1taIDt7jKWkv0sS1C+gYI=; b=mp7svBcEMl8nZ+5Qbbi4EgZrRRROOSTVtoZ7W5LvpuMXx60mwZAbXQqkzjvNlLL0KO F7h+fELoBmezkHnh6Kd2ArRJjTrFdEmSXjwRJQmz9X/j/1nZwAcAH9GRlxun21cwgPP7 dvfjIvn+lsqVOC4TuWYuAs+ym0IrlY+NuZm7WpDXwiprzQwLQgcr5QgJLfxj8nZrLJNI 8Pz+BtyX+U/XSEftS3SOS8hTZDvwQ08iB+1MSw9/fBZLvOF5gyOWQScAFaPmYdfzJd3J RLM6Q+WdbNlsuVNH9nBnPCUDBZ4ZKWjpeflCgyjfxZrGrsgWlm1sSWAMxphRKbWhTjWK CSKA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id ao7mr12902467lac.27.1425051837432; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:43:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 07:43:57 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 09:43:57 -0600
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Thinking laterally
From: Mary Barnes <>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01176b298e8a1d051013bc1f
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 15:44:05 -0000

We already have video for sessions that use Meetecho.  While not perfect,
it's a great way to participate remotely.   And, it uses protocols that we
have developed and are developing in IETF.

Hopefully, meeting minutes for all the sessions that use Meetcho have links
to the recordings.  If not, you can find them here:
I've gone back to the recordings when prepare meeting minutes.

Just as a note, I am not commenting either way on the charging thing.  I
see the obvious advantage but I also think there's a number of
disadvantages.  Per my comment earlier about meeting minutes, wouldn't it
be a real turnoff if someone was wanting to catch-up with a WG, but had to
pay to see the corresponding video recording from a meeting?


On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <
> wrote:

> Thinking of the remote participant fee. As someone whose travel
> restrictions prevent attending in certain parts of the world:
> * I have no problem paying a fee but I am not the decision maker
> * Paying a fee is better for my CFO
> * Not paying a fee is even better for my CFO unless we get something for it
> One thing I really would like more of as a remote attendee is video of the
> sessions. That is something worth paying for and it is something that we
> should have adequate technology base for. If video streaming sessions
> really is more than plugging in a camera... we is still doin it wrong.
> So kicking in $100 a session for video is a no-brainer. Can make this an
> advance payment thing. The video is only guaranteed if at least one person
> drops the $100 though and the list of 'sponsors' of the video is only
> published after the ability to sign up closes.
> If someone wants to add video after the fact they pay a full conference
> fee per session.