On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 08:40:08PM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
> When you are talking about making an event entirely virtual, you need to ask
> yourself if a PetchaKucha to an empty room would be interesting.
>
> I would submit that it would simply not work.
> You need the interaction with the audience, if only to see whether the joke
> is going the right way or not.
Interesting aspect, yes. But wouldn't be top of mind for me to solve.
Would be fun to try to solve though if there was a tools development track.
> So PHB's point about HotRFC remains.
> I want to soften it slightly: being able to go up to the person afterwards
> and chat is the reason it works in person. That fails for remote presenters,
> and for remote audience, and therefore Youtube would be as good.
The after-presentation chat requirement is IMHO just a variation of the
hallway problem. Did we actually agree in the discussion whether want
audio or texting or both ?
> [poster, frys, mbone and usb sticks...]
> My problem is with trying to bring in-person interaction to remote
> attendees. It results in a really poor remote-interaction, and really poor
> in-person interaction.
Its IMHO just a big tooling issue. Nothing that could be solved if you
had at least 1 million dollars to spend on good developers and slowly
building up tooling components, incrementally with experimentation
(instead of the usual waterfall waste of money into one complete new
overdesigned system that will never work).
But not a lot that can be improved IMHO if you think you can get it for free.
> Either have an in-person meeting, or have a virtual meeting where everyone is
> remote (and dammit: you can all afford $80 gamer headsets, and use external
> USB adapters). Just don't try to mix things up.
well known regurgitated argument. I will agree to the local/remote
mix won't work for current tooling. See above on investment need to
solve limitations.
> Meetecho for a group of people who are mostly in the room, and where have
> good mic line discipline can work. But there is an awful lot of work that
> can't get done in that format (having nothing to with remote attendees).
> That's why we have side meetings or BarBOFs, where we can have a group of 6
> to 10 people hash some difficult thing out. We NEED the non-verbal queues to
> have a good conversation, and trying to talk to someone's iPAD just won't cut
> it. Sorry.
Audio calls between rooms with multiple people and remote participants
can work very well, i remember a BIER interim in San Jose, USB handsfree
and webex that worked IMHO very well.
But then of course all those tools immediately show how
important fundamentals haven't been solved well for decades. For example
i now often get audio buffer-bloat (especially with RTCweb, depending on
browser, internet connection etc. pps), aka: my voice is 10 seconds behind,
and then of course you come over over extremely rude interrupting always
etc. pp. And of course there is not even signaling of the problem
such as a display showing current channel RTT or red blinking light.
And why should there be problem diagnosis for problems that do not need
to exist in the first place ? Just because the industry has shown it's
incapable to fix those problems for decades ?
[10 more rant pages deleted for space]
Just tried the example of one of the IMHO most fundamental tooling issue
we have: No business critical quality audio channels between remote.
Cheers
Toerless
> The goal here is not to eliminate all meetings, nor is it to support people
> who can NEVER come to a meeting. The goal is to reduce the number of
> meetings we *have* to have, and to MAXIMIZE how much we do when we do gather.
> Is the BarBOF the only way to bring new work to the IETF? No.
> Is it a good way to meet other people who might be able to help?
> Yes, but it's not the only way.
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>
>
>
--
---
tte@xxxxxxxxx
