Re: [vmeet] IETF95 remote attendance

Meetecho IETF support <ietf@meetecho.com> Fri, 15 April 2016 17:45 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@meetecho.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72ADB12E0F7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 10:45:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.921
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.921 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 psKCg1EEh2ws for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 10:45:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpcmd04134.aruba.it (smtpcmd04134.aruba.it [62.149.158.134]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EBEB12DF6F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 10:45:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.106] ([151.77.134.3]) by smtpcmd04.ad.aruba.it with bizsmtp id ihlT1s01104Zlvb01hlTky; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 19:45:28 +0200
Subject: Re: [vmeet] IETF95 remote attendance
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
References: <5710CA7F.3050207@meetecho.com> <1204.1460735280@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
From: Meetecho IETF support <ietf@meetecho.com>
Message-ID: <571128B2.7010702@meetecho.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 19:45:22 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1204.1460735280@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/zVKBSKtonJE2BY6XjXrJxXRxYtE>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, vmeet@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 17:45:32 -0000

Il 15/04/2016 17:48, Michael Richardson ha scritto:
>
> Meetecho IETF support <ietf@meetecho.com> wrote:
>      > - 621 registered remote participants.
>
>      > - 712 unique remote participants joined Meetecho through the week;
>      > among these, 282 opted to also put their Registration ID.
>
> These numbers seem weird.
> 621 people registered, but then somewhere between 339 and 430 of them decided
> not to put in their ID.

Well, Reg IDs are hard to remember. As there were not mandatory, our 
feeling is that a lot of people just didn't want to spend time 
retrieving the confirmation email the registration system sent them.

> Clearly 91 people attended without having registered.
>
> Some people might have put their registration in sometimes, and not other
> times?    Would that couild as two?

This actually depends on the name they used, the IP address, and some 
other parameters we take into account to minimize duplication.

>
> If someone didn't put their number in for multiple sessions, would that count
> as multiple?

See above.

>
> Well, it says "712 unique".. how was that uniqueness determined, if not through IDs?
> If I used different devices (work/home/tablet/laptop) would that cound as
> multiple?

Again, see above. :)

>
> I'm very impressed with the numbers: something like 50% of participants were remote.
>

Please remember that some remote participants were actually "on-site". 
We've even seen a couple of remote questions through the virtual queue 
from people we met in BA! ;)