On 11/14/2012 8:48 AM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
On 11/12/12 6:08 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 11/11/2012 18:06, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
...
... snip ...
There's no doubt that personal attendance is the best way to get a full
understanding of how the IETF works, but remote participation is
supposed to work.
I fully agree. However, I've found that the tools we use for remote
participation in the IETF are, IMO, a bit archaic.
There is no reason ComeToMeeting or other service like it is not used to
fully integrate a WG allowing remote participation. For those that dont
their charter is the key thing - i.e. whether they also need to actually
not do any formal deciding of anything at meetings and votes or work
done at meeting is like all other NoteWell constrained IP, tied to the
IETF's collection-consensus processes.
Don't get me wrong, I
fully support having Jabber rooms and audio streams, but, its really
difficult to follow a meeting that way, but I've had much better remote
participation experiences in other conferences than I've had with the IETF.
That said - there is a larger issue and its how individual WG's operate
relative to any responsibility to provide online access to meetings. I
think that the Remote Participation Rules for the WG are part of the WG
charter and need to be included so everyone knows what the IP collection
and NoteWell Management Practice for that WG is going to be since each
standard process is different to some extent. That said - the process
and framework for each WG effort is also independent from most others as
well with the limited exception of instances where a WG served a whole
class of layer-2 or layer-3 application contexts like PKIX did for
instance.
What I propose - and this may sound initially wonky but think about it -
that someone, and it should be one or a group of the IPR people I think,
put together a set of "WG Charter Templates" as an Internet-Draft(s).
What no one has stepped to yet is that processes inside WG;s need the
same type of resolution in their make up as things like the BCP78/79
specify for the higher-level (boilerplate) issues.
The template should have in it a set of models which can be selected in
a cafeteria style selection for "REMOTE PARTICIPATION RULES AND
IMPLICATIONS". This would specify IP processing workflows for how
NoteWell controlled content was brought into the group through meetings
and what archival processes would be necessary for that as well. That
way everyone knows what they are getting into and the framework for the
WG's practices are set during its operations.
This actually will work and would help the organization out a lot - I
hope you can address the idea and what power it would give the IETF
without cringing that it is me suggesting it.
Todd
Meetecho is a good starting point, but it's not available in most
sessions and the quality of the video feed is very poor. It also suffers
from reliability issues where people get dropped from the session.
Having Meetecho available in most WG sessions would be a great bonus for
remote participants. If this is not possible, I think we should consider
having a registration mechanism for remote participants so the resources
can be better managed.
The key here is having the remote participants in mind, as a real
constituency. So far this is not the case, they are almost an
afterthought. Meetecho service can be improved including using real
cameras (not webcams attached to a notebook's display) and providing
adequate mounting points for the cameras, adequate lighting and marking
the space where the speakers should stand in order to be better captured
by the camera.
Warm regards,
~Carlos
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2793 / Virus Database: 2629/5893 - Release Date: 11/13/12
--
Regards TSG
"Ex-Cruce-Leo"
//Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended recipient.