Re: procedural question with remote participation

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

 




--On Tuesday, August 06, 2013 11:06 -0400 Andrew Feren
<andrewf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>...
> I think this sort of misses the point.  At least for me as a
> remote participant.
> 
> I'm not interested in arguing about whether slides are good or
> bad. I am interested in following (and being involved) in the
> WG meeting.  When there are slides I want to be able to see
> them clearly from my remote location.  Having them integrated
> with Meetecho works fine.  Having slides and other materials
>...

Let me say part of this differently, with the understanding I
may be more fussy (or older and less tolerant) than Andrew is...

If the IETF is going to claim that remote participation (rather
than remote passive listening/ observation with mailing list
follow up) is feasible, then it has to work.  If, as a remote
participant, I could be guaranteed zero-delay transmission and
receipt of audio and visual materials (including high enough
resolution of slides to be able to read all of them) and that
speakers (in front of the room and at the mic) would identify
themselves clearly and then speak clearly and at reasonable
speed, enunciating every word, I wouldn't care whether slides
were posted in advance or not.  

Realistically, that doesn't happen.  In some cases (e.g.,
lag-free audio) it is beyond the state of the art or a serious
technical challenge (e.g., video that is high enough resolution
that I can slides that have been prepared with 12 point type).
In others, we haven't done nearly enough speaker training or it
hasn't been effective (e.g., people mumbling, speaking very
quickly, swallowing words, or wandering out of microphone or
camera range).   And sometimes there are just problems (e.g.,
intermittent audio or video, servers crashing, noisy audio
cables or other audio or video problems in the room).   

In those cases, as a remote participant, I need all the help I
can get.  I'd rather than no one ever use a slide that has
information on it in a type size that would be smaller than 20
pt on A4 paper.  But 14 pt and even 12 pt happen, especially if
the slides were prepared with a tool that quietly shrinks things
to fit in the image area.  If I'm in the room and such a slide
is projected, I can walk to the front to see if if I'm not
already in front and can't deduce what I need from context.  If
I'm remote and have such a slide in advance, I can zoom in on it
or otherwise get to the information I need (assuming high enough
resolution).  If I'm remote and reading the slide off video,
especially low resolution video, is hopeless.  

More generally, being able to see an outline of what the speaker
is talking about is of huge help when the audio isn't completely
clear.  Others have mentioned this, but, if I couldn't read and
understand slides in English easily in real time, it would be of
even more help if I had the slides far enough in advance to be
able to read through them at my own pace before the WG session
and even make notes abut what they are about in my most-familiar
language ... and that is true whether I'm remote or in the room.

And, yes, for my purposes, 48 hours ahead of the WG meeting
would be plenty.  But I can read and understand English in real
time.  If the IETF cares about diversity as well as about remote
participation and someone whose English is worse than mine is
trying to follow several WGs, 48 hours may not be enough without
requiring a lot of extra effort.

That is not, however, the key reason I said "a week".  The more
important part of the reason is that a one-week cutoff gives the
WG Chair (or IETF or IAB Chairs for the plenaries) the time to
make adjustments.  If there is a nominal one week deadline, then
the WG Chair has lots of warning when things don't show up.  She
can respond by getting on someone's case, by accepting a firm
promise and a closer deadline, by finding someone else to take
charge of the presentation or discussion-leading, or by
rearranging the agenda.  And exceptions can be explained to the
WG on the mailing list.  With a 48 hour deadline, reasonable
ways to compensate are much less likely, the Chair is likely to
have only the choice that was presented this time (accepting
late slides or hurting the WG's ability to consider important
issues) and one needs to start talking about sanctions for bad
behavior.   I would never suggest a firm "one week or no agenda
time" rule.  I am suggesting something much more like a "one
week or the WG Chair needs to make an exception, explain it to
the WG, and be accountable if the late slides cause too much of
a problem".  There is some similarity between this and the
current I-D cutoff rule and its provision for AD-authorized
exceptions.  That similarity is intentional.


--On Monday, August 05, 2013 13:36 -0500 James Polk
<jmpolk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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...

Hmm.  First, I missed the IESG Statement requiring the people
use pptx or any other particular piece of
presentation-preparation software, much less the IETF consensus
for that statement.  If the tools you choose to use don't meet
the needs of the IETF, that doesn't seem to me to be an IETF
problem.

Second and more important, while having slide preparation
software number pages, I'm not aware of anything that prevents
you from typing in numbers, especially with something that is as
inherently page (slide)-oriented as presentation-preparation
software.  Yes, it is an annoyance, but having the need to
update slides within a short interval before the meeting/
presentation/ discussion is an annoyance to participants who
depend on the ability to access those slides and who might want
to prepare reference or discussion notes in advance.

> 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)?

3a.  

> 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.

See above.

   best,
   john





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