Douglas,
Totally agree that a requirement is that F2F and remote are equals.
I even believe that a presentation-less format (as the described) is
better for remote participants.
About the minor changes, perhaps. Not very convinced but it could be.
In the same line, what about to have the presentation-material
attached to the last htmlized version of the draft?
In that way people going to a wg meeting (local or remote) knows
where to find the last version of the presentation and if this were
submited in the same way than drafts, then WG chairs would have less work.
Regards,
as
On 7/28/13 3:20 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
> On Jul 28, 2013, at 3:05 PM, Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> That may work as well.
>>
>> It depends on the time that the presenters have to make the material
>> available.
>>
>> The important is to have discussion-material available in advance. It
>> could be a presentation or a video (I would personally prefer a
>> presentation because I can quickly scan it for important things)
> Dear Arturo,
>
> Emphasis should be to ensure equal status for remote participants. For reasonable remote participation, presentation material should be made available in advance. It seems reasonable to allow minor edits within a day or even hours before the meeting starts.
>
> To do this, video and audio control should be centralized within the meeting room and virtualized in the cloud when necessary. A dual core Atom processor should be all that is needed. Rather than using an audio bridge with multiple simultaneous audio and video feeds, a strategy should be developed that suits those in the meeting venue as as well as those who are remote. For this, there should be a minor level of automation available to facilitate selection of individuals permitted to speak. This control should not need to be done at the meeting venue, but in the cloud as well.
>
> Regards,
> Douglas Otis
>