Re: [vmeet] Experience as a remote attendee

[Simon Pietro Romano <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,

both your thoughts are not only wise, but already on the high-priority to-do list for the Meetecho team. We'll keep you and the others updated with respect to these and other improvements to the platform.

Thanks a lot for your feedback,

Simon 

Il 10 Aprile 2016 23:38:48 CEST, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> ha scritto:
>Simon,
>
>A thought about one aspect of your note...
>
>--On Sunday, April 10, 2016 22:11 +0200 Simon Pietro Romano
><[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>...
>>  In case of remote presentations, each remotee obviously adds
>> one further video stream to the pack. If you add to that the
>> lower- bandwidth Meetecho traffic (chat, client-server polling
>> and the like), plus some background traffic not generated by
>> Meetecho, you easily arrive at (or close to) saturation. 
>>...
>
>So, suppose one has several "remotees" sending video.  I don't
>think we've seen that so far with IETF, where it has tended to
>be, at most, one remote presenter at a time, but it could easily
>occur if/as we start introducing remote hubs as a serious
>participation (as distinct from outreach) mechanism.
>
>While Meetecho has relatively good arrangements (now) for
>switching the screen from a focus on slides to a focus on one or
>another of the video streams and back [1], if I'm a remote
>person who is bandwidth-limited or computer-cycles-limited, I'd
>really like to be able to control which video stream(s) are
>competing for that bandwidth.  Now, for the general case, I
>think that is unrealistic.   But it may be that a pair of
>Meetecho feeds, one more or less as present and the other
>designed to minimize bandwidth  -- fewer video panes on the
>right even you have to scan between them, maybe lower resolution
>in those panes compared to the center one, etc. -- would be
>worth thinking about.
>
>On a slightly related topic, the way Meetecho appears on my
>screen forces me to make a choice between the "Participants"
>pane and the Jabber one on the left even when there is a lot of
>spare real estate on the right (due to only one video stream
>plus monitoring my local camera which is apparently not being
>sent back to you anyway).   Possibly some rethinking of those
>relationships might be useful.
>
>best,
>   john
>
>p.s. As someone who has been doing this for most (but not all)
>meetings for a while, let me add my voice to others -- the
>meeting over meeting and year over year improvements are nothing
>short of fantastic.
>
>
>[1] Once one figures out how to use it; the "finding out how"
>parts remain a bit problematic.