Le 2013-02-07 à 09:46, Thomas Narten a écrit : > It is good to document what we have been doing. But the text seems to > focus on technology and tools… I agree and disagree. > > IMO, what is missing is operational Best Practices. We seem to be > lacking them (are any written down?) And we don't follow them > consistently, especially from one WG to another. Many of the problems > I see with remote participation facilties have to do not with the > technology per se, but with lack of proper training and advance > testing. I get the general sense that getting the remote stuff to work > is a volunteer effort where each person tries it themselves with no > checklist of obvious things to do in advance, and no recourse if no > one in the room can get something working. right. I for one had chaired a few working groups where the main contributors (and therefore presenters) were not on-site. I spent a significant amount of time in preparation, testing, etc… with the great help of Joel Jaeggli borrowing me the right cables. For most time, it worked. Sometimes it did not work well. And given that the meeting rooms are all occupied, it is very difficult to test a lot in advance, so I did in off hours, such as during lunch doing sound checks while an informal meeting was taking place and I was disturbing, but my chairing was the first session after lunch. In summary, currently, bi-directionnal audio is not well supported (no criticism intended, just a fact), which does not help in having remote participation, specially for speakers. So technology and tools, well tested, in production, supported, would help a lot, at least in the use cases I've been involved. Having said that, your point of best practices is also relevant. And also wg chairs doing more prep in advance of their meeting, unless we have paid support staff to take care of these. Marc. > > E.g., I was at an interim meeting last fall, where it looked like when > the meeting started, that was the the first that folk actually looked > at the facilities in the room (phone, microphones, etc.) to see how > best to allow remote participants to speak. The quick conclusion was > "can't be done". This should have been worked out (and tested) in > advance, not at the start of the meeting. > > Thomas