[vmeet] Supporting interim meetings (was Re: Duties of WG Chairs)
Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net> Mon, 11 May 2009 23:59 UTC
Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: vmeet@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vmeet@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C9D23A67DB for <vmeet@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2009 16:59:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.592, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bc7fjh29Oaf7 for <vmeet@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2009 16:59:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (mail.mipassoc.org [IPv6:2001:470:1:76:0:ffff:4834:7146]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D22D83A6AD2 for <vmeet@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 May 2009 16:59:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (adsl-68-122-32-149.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [68.122.32.149]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n4C011ds018604 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <vmeet@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 May 2009 17:01:07 -0700
Message-ID: <4A08BC3C.9070302@dcrocker.net>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 17:01:00 -0700
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: vmeet@ietf.org
References: <20090507175356.GG32848@verdi>
In-Reply-To: <20090507175356.GG32848@verdi>
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 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Mon, 11 May 2009 17:01:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [vmeet] Supporting interim meetings (was Re: Duties of WG Chairs)
X-BeenThere: vmeet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: IETF remote participation meeting services discussion <vmeet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet>, <mailto:vmeet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 11 May 2009 23:59:39 -0000
John Leslie wrote: > As part of the discussion, one AD mentioned that Virtual Interim > Meetings are being seriously considered. (I have noted three announcement > of Virtual Interim meetings recently.) ... > Can we do anything to help? Excellent timing for the query. I am starting to suspect that the answer is yes. I've been thinking about the experiences, so far, in looking at tools, and I'm suspecting that the two, immediate, areas of potential benefit are the IETF management meetings (IESG, IAB, IAOC) and interim meetings. A distinction that came up in a private discussion was between 'special' events -- less frequent, and amongst a group where participants have less experience with each other -- versus regular ones. The management meetings are quite regular in timing and participation. That has an effect on group dynamics and probably makes it tolerable to have /less/ basic functionality, such as sharing slides, but probably makes telephone bridging /more/ important, to deal with participants who are in transit. (The more regular the meetings, the more likely someone is in transit, with no useful Internet connectivity.) By contrast, an interim meeting could require good Internet access for participants and, therefore, limit voice to VOIP. But content display and meeting management tools probably become more important. By contrast a plenary or, worse, an entire week-long series of sessions is vastly more complicated and demanding. I think we can see the hints of capability emerging but could not reasonably expect to have major impact on main IETF meetings quickly. We can probably improve the current functionality for remote participants, but we aren't likely to make a serious dent in the actual /need/ for full-week, face-to-face meetings. Based on this view -- and folks are encouraged to comment -- I think that a good near-term goal is to try to find a tool to enable easy, virtual interim meetings. We should try to converge on the statement of functions and scaling that we think are essential for an interim meeting. From the ealier discussions, one of the milestones was stated as: > MG-C: Individual virtual session, small scale (30?) Henning offered these items in response: > - Ability to render PowerPoint and PDF MUST, OpenOffice SHOULD. > > - For audio, allow VoIP and PSTN dial-in (800# is MAY). > > - Ability to mute remote participants (e.g., to deal with someone's > music-on-hold system) > > - Audio recording ============================= From the earlier postings, here's what I think we are wanting, to support a virtual, interim meeting. I'll note that we need to be careful about an existence proof for a function, versus what is comfortable for its regular use. In particular because we are a technical group, we can deal with all sorts of silliness that the rest of the world can't, won't, and should not have to. However I believe that for regular use, we need to pretend that we aren't geeks and instead demand features and ease of use that makes sense for regular folk. So... REQUIRED -------- 0. Scale I think we could get away with a relatively modest initial requirement. Say, 30 people? That will limit applicability for the larger and more active working groups. I guess the real question is what participation numbers there have been for interim meetings over the last couple of years? We might still settle on a small initial number, but we should try to know beforehand. 1. Meeting management - a) Ability to queue up participants, as if at a microphone For meetings of a group that can easily be 20-40 people, with relatively little history of group collaboration, the job of meeting management is vastly easier when there is some functional help for coordinating who wants to speak next. b) Ability to shift who is presenting This is the equivalent of having different folk come up to the front of the room and plug in their laptop. I suspect that a failure to support this mode of participation would seriously hamper the convenience -- and possibly effectiveness -- of meetings. 2. VOIP for voice As noted above, a telephone bridge does not have to be a requirement, for meetings that are infrequent. 3. Shared slide presentation Shipping powerpoint files around is tolerable only for special cases, I believe. Since we are talking about broad-based, regular use, we should make presenting slides as comfortable as it is in a room. A major benefit of integrated slide presentation and control is that there is then no need to worry about people's knowing what slide is showing. 4. Shared white board My gut says that this really is an extremely useful feature for many meetings. And since it's available in a number of products, it seems to make sense that we require it. NICE-TO-HAVE ------------ 5. IM Existing IETF jabber can suffice, IMO. IM integrated into the conferencing tool would be nice, but only if it is on a par with the jabber service we are used to. 6. Telephone bridge (in, out) mumble. This adds quite a bit of expense. I could argue /against/ supporting it at all(!) 7. ??? Comments? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
- [vmeet] Duties of WG Chairs John Leslie
- [vmeet] Supporting interim meetings (was Re: Duti… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [vmeet] Supporting interim meetings (was Re: … Thomas Narten
- Re: [vmeet] Supporting interim meetings John Leslie
- Re: [vmeet] Supporting interim meetings (was Re: … Dave Cridland
- [vmeet] The philosophy behind the list of recomme… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [vmeet] Supporting interim meetings Dave CROCKER
- Re: [vmeet] Supporting interim meetings Brian Rosen
- Re: [vmeet] Supporting interim meetings Dave CROCKER
- Re: [vmeet] Supporting interim meetings John Leslie
- [vmeet] timeframe Dave CROCKER
- Re: [vmeet] timeframe John Leslie
- Re: [vmeet] timeframe Doug Otis
- Re: [vmeet] timeframe Dave Cridland
- Re: [vmeet] timeframe Brian Rosen
- Re: [vmeet] Supporting interim meetings Thomas Narten
- Re: [vmeet] Supporting interim meetings Doug Otis
- Re: [vmeet] Supporting interim meetings Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [vmeet] Supporting interim meetings Doug Otis