Re: procedural question with remote participation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



At 12:38 PM 8/5/2013, John C Klensin wrote:
Hi.

I seem to have missed a lot of traffic since getting a few
responses yesterday.  I think the reasons why slides should be
available well in advance of the meeting have been covered well
by others.  And, as others have suggested, I'm willing to see
updates to those slides if things change in the hours leading
up to the meeting, but strongly prefer that those updates come
as new alides with update-type "numbers" or other
identification rather than new decks.  In other words, if a
deck is posted in advance with four slides numbered 1, 2, 3,
and 4, and additional information is needed for 3, I'd prefer
to see the updated deck consist of slides 1, 2, 3, 3a, 3b, 4 or
1, 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4, rather than 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

How exactly do you do this in pptx? Numbering slides is a linear operation AFAICT, and it's binary (it's either on or off). Please educate me if I'm wrong; lord knows I don't know don't know how to do everything flag/setting in powerpoint...

And, in my 8 years as TSVWG chair, I've rarely had completely new individual slides sprinkled throughout an existing deck. Rather, I've received updated slides - each with part of their content altered. Does this fall into your desire for a "3a", or is that just "3" (because 3a means an entirely new slide from scratch)?

BTW - I'm very much *not* in favor of stipulating to my WG that slides must be turned in 7 days in advance of a TSVWG meeting. I personally think no more than a 48 hour advanced window should ever be considered.

James

I also
prefer consolidated decks but, if WG chairs find that too
difficult, I'm happy to do my own consolidating if everyting is
available enough in advance for me to do sol

Almost independent of the above, the idea that one should just
watch the slides on Meetecho implies that Meetecho is
available in every session (it isn't) and that everything
works.  In addition, they either need the slides in advance or
need to be able to broadcast real-time video at a resolution
that makes the slides readable.  The latter was not the case
last week in some of the sessions in which Meetecho was
transmitting the slides sometimes due in part to interesting
speaker-training issues.

The reasons to discourage anonymity aren't just "patent
nonsense" (although that should be sufficient and I rather like
the pun).  Despite all we say and believe about individual
participation, the IETF has a legitimate need to understand the
difference between comments on a specification from an audience
with diverse perspectives and organized campaigns or a loud
minority with a shared perspective.  That requires
understanding whether speakers are largely independent of each
other (versus what have sometimes been referred to as sock
puppets for one individual) or whether they are part of an
organization mounting a systematic campaign to get a particular
position adopted (or not adopted).  The latter can also raise
some rather nasty antitrust / anti-competitiveness issues.
Clear identification of speakers, whether in the room or
remote, can be a big help in those regards, even though it
can't prevent all problems.  And the IETF having a policy that
requires clear identification at least establishes that we,
organizationally and procedurally, are opposed to nefarious,
deceptive, and posslbly illegal behavior.

A rule about having slides well in advance helps in another
way: slides that are bad news for some reasons but posted
several days in advance of the meeting provide opportunities
for comments and adjustments (from WG Chairs and others).  Ones
that are posted five minutes before (or 10 minutes after) a
session lose that potential advantage.  Again, I don't think we
should get rigid about it: if slides are posted in advance
and then supplemented or revised after feedback is received,
everyone benefits.

I want to stress that, while I think registration of remote
people who intend to participate is desirable for many reasons,
I think trying to condition microphone use (either remote on
in-room) with proof of registration and mapping of names would
be looking for a lot of trouble with probably no significant
benefits.

best,
   john





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]