Re: Virtual Meetings / Work Process Thoughts

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Top-posting to ask - are we supposed to be having this critical
conversation in any particular place? Parts of it have been bouncing on
(IIRC) the IETF discussion list, 107attendees, and manycouches (
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manycouches), and likely other places
as well.

Since we're now playing for high stakes, if the IESG could pick a place,
that would be AWESOME.

Best,

Spencer


On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 9:49 AM Livingood, Jason <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> A few random observations for Jay (cc’d) or anyone else starting to build
> a list of requirements (if we assume we must do virtual 108, 109, 1XX) or
> practices for conducting a WG meeting.
>
>
>
>    - It’d be nice to have a very easy, preferably web-based chat channel
>    for each WG session.
>    - We need a better mechanism to manage the mic queue rather than +Q
>    and -Q in the chat channel.
>    - We need more scale & performance on some of the backend servers (I
>    often experience slowness on datatracker, etherpad, main webpage, etc.)
>    - We need a virtual hum tool of some kind that’s not voting. Maybe if
>    we want to hum we all click a button and you see a “volume” level increase
>    kind of like an audio-level display. Or maybe everyone goes off mute for an
>    actual hum. Who knows.
>    - Some process stuff:
>       - I would like to be able to have the chair(s) on video at the same
>       time as slides, not one or the other.
>       - With mic lines, I’d like to have the person speaking “at the mic”
>       on video as well as the speaker(s) and/or chair(s).
>       - This may be achievable with tools like Webex or Zoom – or not. Or
>       it might require a dedicated video conference manager to handle it (kind of
>       like the people at the mixing board in the back of the ballroom during a
>       plenary) – and we should be open to resourcing this if needed.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Jason
>