Overall comment. Meetecho is a wonderful marvelous tool, the staff is fantastically helpful, all quite an uptick from the jabber+audio experience of long ago IETFs. Long life to them! But. Are we mandating the use of meetecho for remote participation? Are those who still use jabber+audio just out of luck? About > 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”. In what way does the virtual queue counteract the time it takes for the “any questions” to reach my platform before the “no? ok, on to next topic” occurs in the meeting room? ’T’would indeed be great to inject my audio and maybe video into the room. Save me the typing which always takes me much too long. But. See overall comment on jabber+audio. Not all people are remotely participating in situations where they can speak out loud. What, no one has ever been sitting in one wg, with one ear and a jabber window devoted to the wg in another room? > The Meetecho queue might have done the trick also in this case, by the way. The chair who did not see the jabber/chat room might just as easily not seen the virtual queue. Gotta have somebody in the room to be looking, whether it is looking for the “MIC <comment>” in the jabber room or looking for the "virtual queue, which is projected at all times”. Whether that’s one somebody with an assigned role or a community effort. (I await education of a current tool feature that puts the audio from the virtual queue directly into the room at some deliberate point without human direction. But you did say "in a chair-moderated fashion”.) > 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 I repeat my first enthusiastic gratitude to the work that has been done. I agree with the improvement wholeheartedly. But. Humans, AFAIK, still have a determining factor in making the remote participation work well. —Sandy (wrt jabber+audio vs meetecho. I’ll just presume that Meetecho’s excellence extends to support for audio/visual disabilities; seems a real safe presumption.) > On Nov 7, 2018, at 1:26 PM, Simon Pietro Romano <spromano@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 >> >
