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
- [vmeet] Remote Hub Meeting: Open to All nalini.elkins
- Re: [vmeet] Remote Hub Meeting: Open to All Dave Crocker
- Re: [vmeet] Remote Hub Meeting: Open to All nalini.elkins
- Re: [vmeet] Remote Hub Meeting: Open to All Dave Crocker
- Re: [vmeet] Remote Hub Meeting: Open to All John C Klensin
- Re: [vmeet] Remote Hub Meeting: Open to All Dave Crocker