Just to drill down on one point ...
On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 2:40 PM John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
--On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 14:46 -0500 Sandra Murphy
<sandy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Are we mandating the use of meetecho for remote participation?
> Are those who still use jabber+audio just out of luck?
I hope not. At the same time, I see a difference between
relatively passive remote participation in which someone
observes, tracks documents, participates on the mailing list,
makes an occasional comment in a WG meeting, etc., and really
active participation in which someone might be editing WG
documents, taking one leadership roles such as WG co-chair or
secretary, participating in complex directorate discussions, and
so on. If we needed to require that someone either be f2f or
have enough technology and technology available to run Meetecho,
I, at least, wouldn't be enthused but wouldn't lose a lot of
sleep over it either.
For several years, I carried a Chromebook to IETF meetings, and this was long enough ago that I couldn't run an Android client on my Chromebook (which works now), much less something like Pidgin (which should work as soon as I get my Chromebook sorted for Unix, and I don't think that's far in the future)..
So I was really aware that Meetecho provides the jabber room in a separate window - that's usually how I accessed the Jabber room.
Given that, plus Meetecho using HTML5 for video, etc., what kind of use case are we talking about, where someone can use the audio stream plus a jabber client, but can't use Meetecho?
I'm willing to believe this is a real constraint, I'm just trying to understand what problem we're solving, and if the answer is "we've got most or all of the technology we need to solve these real problems for remote participants without retraining humans, which can improve things but not to the point of perfection", that would be helpful to know.
Spencer
