Re: [vmeet] Remote Hub Meeting: Open to All

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 06 April 2016 15:08 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: vmeet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vmeet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 677D512D8D7 for <vmeet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 08:08:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham 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 xlkXRn_jwCMJ for <vmeet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 08:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D94A12D838 for <vmeet@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 08:05:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1anp1I-0003CZ-BL; Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:05:24 -0400
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:05:19 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com, dcrocker@bbiw.net, vmeet@ietf.org
Message-ID: <8356E3495CAD38C8B550B510@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <1483869071.140038.1459953830553.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <57051EC5.3070108@dcrocker.net> <1483869071.140038.1459953830553.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/vmeet/Db3XxvQY9oUB77v4Qee0kyRMJdk>
Subject: Re: [vmeet] Remote Hub Meeting: Open to All
X-BeenThere: vmeet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF remote participation meeting services discussion <vmeet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/vmeet>, <mailto:vmeet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/vmeet/>
List-Post: <mailto:vmeet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vmeet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet>, <mailto:vmeet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 15:08:43 -0000


--On Wednesday, April 06, 2016 14:43 +0000
nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com wrote:

>> It is probably obvious, especially for this topic, so please
>> don't take  offense to my asking whether this will be
>> broadcast by meetecho, so  remote folk can participate...?
> 
> 
> No offense taken!  That room is set up for remote access & I
> am confirming with MeetEcho people. 

There is now a link on the Meetecho page for that room and time.
http://www.meetecho.com/ietf95/remotehubs

However, this identifies a more fundamental problem that I've
commented on enough in the past to be sick of complaining about.
Especially if one is either busy or inexperienced, having to
bounce back and forth among multiple web pages to figure out
what is happening, when, and whether and how to participate in
it is, well, challenging and error prone.  The inclusion of
Meetecho links in the Tools agenda is both a huge step forward
and a step back because (1) The Tools agenda does not include
sessions like this and (2) There are sessions listed on the
Tools agenda that appear to have been covered by Meetecho but
(2a) there are no Meetecho links for those sessions on the
agenda (2b) those sessions did not appear on the Meetecho list
until, AFAICT, sometime over the weekend, so, while I laid out
my (remote participation) calendar last week, I naturally
assumed "not covered".   I could have asked or complained, but I
have done so too many times before and am just out of energy.

The cases that fall under (2) are worse than those under (1)
because, with (1), it is at least clear that one needs to look
somewhere else while, unless one somehow knows better, (2) looks
like a definitive statement of non-availability.

     john