Ned,
Il 19/11/20 13:52, ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ha scritto: >> Hi John > >> As this is quite a political question I will answer it for you. > >> If the criticisms are narrowly interpreted as being about the front end we >> are running then this information implies that they were likely based on an >> incorrect interpretation of the issues. > > I see. So when I attempted to switch browsers in order to work around an audio > problem and was informed that I could not rejoin the meeting because emailcore > had run over its time slot, even though the meeting was still going on, this > was simply a "misinterpretation of the issues" on my part?
all sessions are configured to terminate 1 hour after the scheduled end time, and we close the sessions manually when the meeting is actually over, no matter how much it went overtime. The emailcore session closed at 08:36:42 UTC, as you can easily spot from the jabber logs:
https://www.ietf.org/jabber/logs/emailcore/2020-11-17.html
Well... guilty as charged, I guess. It didn't occur to me that I needed to perform a forensic analysis of the jabber logs before reporting a problem, and that not having done meant no response was warranted. Having now looked at those logs, I note that these logs show me leaving at 8:34:13 to switch browsers, which of course I tried to do as quickly as possible, so as to be able to enter the conversation in a timely way. FYI, I normally join meetings by clicking on the URL in the calendar entry, but since the IETF doesn't include A/V links in their invites - no doubt due to sound technical reasons beyond my ken - I use the alternate approach of having the agenda up in a window. I click on the meetecho link and when I'm done I hit back. In this case I modified the procedure slightly: I clicked back, copied the link, brought up the other browwer, and pasted the link there. Now, you say the meeting ended at 08:36:42. I don't actually see that in the log - it looks to me like it happened at 08:37:20, but I'll defer to your expertise in these matters. That means the switching process took ~2.5 minutes. That seems... long, but I suppose it's possible that a previously undiagnosed medical condition caused me to have a absence seizure. Or maybe the process was pretty slow. It also didn't occur to me that someone would (incorrectly, according to both my understanding and what you wrote above) say that the meeting was about to be be shut down and everyone would abruptly terminate the active discussion and disconnect. In effect creating a miniature cascade failure for me. Of course I would also have seen this had I looked at the logs. Mea maxima culpa. All that said, what occurs to me now is that I'm clearly not competent to use the system you provide and that my expectations for it, based as they are on multi-hour daily use of Zoom, are out of line. You may rest assured that I have learned my lession, and I won't be particpating in future IETF meetings, online or in person, again. Ned
