Re: remote participation

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

 



Hello Sandra,

a couple of comments in-line.

Last IETF, I was trying to listen in and ask questions remotely - I found that many wg did not have anyone assigned the role of transferring questions to the mike.  And even if there was a person assigned, the remote latency meant that “any questions” asked in the room, followed 2 seconds later by “no?  ok, on to next topic” did not leave enough time for remote questions to appear.

A feasible approach to removing such a latency is indeed represented by the use of the Meetecho virtual queue. In this way, remote participants can in fact directly inject (in a chair-moderated fashion) their audio (and video, if desired) into the conference room, with no need for any “jabber relay”.

This IETF, there was no one assigned in the plenary to relay questions from the meetecho chat /jabber room to the mic.

That was unfortunate, indeed. 

The Meetecho queue might have done the trick also in this case, by the way. Remote participants requests get collected in the virtual queue, which is projected at all times inside the conference room, both on secondary screens and on a dedicated laptop on the chairs’ desk.

Is real-time remote participation a goal?  Is it supposed to be supported enough that it is effective participation? Or is it just for those who are passive observers?

I might be biased,  but my feeling is that we, as a community, have devoted huge efforts in the past years to improve the “quality” of the remote participation experience, by tackling the issue both from the cultural and the technological perspective. Things can (and must) always be improved, obviously. And a lot of work is still to be done. Though, I do believe we have made giant steps towards the final target of what Ray Pelletier used to call the “being there” experience.

My 2 cents,

Simon


                                  _\\|//_
                               ( O-O )
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o00~~(_)~~00o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                     Simon Pietro Romano
               Universita' di Napoli Federico II
                      Computer Engineering Department 
             Phone: +39 081 7683823 -- Fax: +39 081 7683816
                                           e-mail: spromano@xxxxxxxx

    <<Molti mi dicono che lo scoraggiamento è l'alibi degli 
    idioti. Ci rifletto un istante; e mi scoraggio>>. Magritte.
                                     oooO
       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(   )~~~ Oooo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                 \ (            (   )
                                  \_)          ) /
                                                                       (_/



Il giorno 07 nov 2018, alle ore 20:29, Sandra Murphy <sandy@xxxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto:

Remote participation is hard even in the ideal.  I’ve run into cases recently when it was harder than it needed to be.

Last IETF, I was trying to listen in and ask questions remotely - I found that many wg did not have anyone assigned the role of transferring questions to the mike.  And even if there was a person assigned, the remote latency meant that “any questions” asked in the room, followed 2 seconds later by “no?  ok, on to next topic” did not leave enough time for remote questions to appear.

This IETF, there was no one assigned in the plenary to relay questions from the meetecho chat /jabber room to the mic.

Is real-time remote participation a goal?  Is it supposed to be supported enough that it is effective participation? Or is it just for those who are passive observers?

—Sandy


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP


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

  Powered by Linux