Re: [vmeet] Stockholm

Dave CROCKER <> Tue, 28 July 2009 22:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85BAC3A6811 for <>; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:03:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.064
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.064 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.335, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_MLH_Stock1=0.87]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JH-P1rwG+2rx for <>; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:03:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1:76:0:ffff:4834:7147]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6720E3A6806 for <>; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:03:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n6SM3Icv022518 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:03:26 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:03:14 +0200
From: Dave CROCKER <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" <>
References: <20090727055308.GB9935@verdi><> <1248704898.5653.91.camel@scott> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 ( []); Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [vmeet] Stockholm
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF remote participation meeting services discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 22:03:32 -0000

Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote:
> It seemed like just a normal phone call on my end today in the WebEx
> session.  

Wes, many thanks for the quick report.  Glad things went well.

>      Also, even though I'm in Boxborough, MA and the other
> side was Stockholm, I didn't notice much of a delay in question/answer
> from my side.  Perhaps this was because people were very polite, waited
> their turn, and did not talk over each other.

I suspect that a question/answer segment is the most challenging to make work 
well for remote participation, because it involves multiple people who are 
active and can have fast shifts from one participant to the other.

Do you have a sense of the number of people who were active during the Q/A segment?

Your observation that participants were careful and polite is significant.

Compared with having speaker and audience in the same room, can you offer any 
other comments about what was different and whether it could have caused problems?

Any other comments about the experience?

Again, thanks?


   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking