Re: [vmeet] Stockholm

"Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" <> Thu, 30 July 2009 19:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AE7E3A722F for <>; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.681
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.681 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.448, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_MLH_Stock1=0.87]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bG6MFsXyPSDn for <>; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:19:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC3B93A71F1 for <>; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:19:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEAHuPcUpAZnme/2dsb2JhbAC8BognkEMFgjKBZQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.43,296,1246838400"; d="scan'208";a="52300460"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 30 Jul 2009 19:19:15 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n6UJJFnr017612; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:19:15 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n6UJJFgE024270; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:19:15 GMT
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:19:15 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:19:14 -0400
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [vmeet] Stockholm
Thread-Index: AcoPz0PnSuA8SPe2RQ+eZq84m/ZmgwBeHe4Q
References: <20090727055308.GB9935@verdi><> <1248704898.5653.91.camel@scott> <> <> <> <>
From: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jul 2009 19:19:15.0736 (UTC) FILETIME=[A0D9C980:01CA114A]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2709; t=1248981555; x=1249845555; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version;;; z=From:=20=22Wes=20Beebee=20(wbeebee)=22=20< m> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[vmeet]=20Stockholm |Sender:=20 |To:=20<>; bh=i81Cp+xOpMh0w49zfjrwtmQFgdvLnryVBeonZMZsRus=; b=XuyAq2jSXYuYFVysWy2XiuaEJEtkhTScGpajXu5JQqtKxeOGXGPcjN64qG FcvMMR7IARZxBmK1STYHTUTqNpwyc/PeCF653xsWFf2vyD2AApuY2AZBmAHS 8+hUbuMV5f;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1;; dkim=pass ( sig from verified; );
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: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:19:38 -0000

>> 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?

Actually, not really - because either they didn't identify themselves or
I was focusing more on what the questions were asking than who was
asking them...  That's actually something that's impossible to ignore
when in person, but is easy to miss when participating remotely.  Either
you can decide that it's not important, or if it is - then video of
who's at the mike would be helpful here.  If we lived in a purely
democratic world, then it ideally wouldn't matter who asked the
question.  Which is kind of interesting - remote presentation can have
the effect of giving everybody a fair shake...

> Your observation that participants were careful and polite is
> 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?

Well, with a remote presenter, the conversation has to be a little more
controlled and less spontaneous.  Thanks to Fred for doing a good job of
moderating.  Also, everything needs to be well-planned in advance -
which I think was also well done in the v6ops session.   In person, you
can slack off to some extent with the planning and not get hurt too
badly - but remote presentation really forces everyone to be on their

> Any other comments about the experience?

Well, you don't get the back-room discussions when presenting remotely -
and to some extent, better use of the mailer, private E-mails, and phone
calls to individuals/groups between IETF's can help make up for the lack
of interaction.  Because the intensity of interaction is less when not
attending IETF, you have to plan to have more hours of interaction with
key individuals in order to have the same productivity when editing a
working group work item.

> Again, thanks?

And many thanks to Fred Baker for allowing me to present remotely and
making it go as smoothly as possible.

- Wes