[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ietf
Subject:    REMOTE PARTICIPATION TEMPLATES: was Re: Newcomers [Was: Evolutionizing the IETF]
From:       tglassey <tglassey () earthlink ! net>
Date:       2012-11-14 17:06:07
Message-ID: 50A3CF7F.9040707 () earthlink ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

On 11/14/2012 8:48 AM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
>
> On 11/12/12 6:08 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 11/11/2012 18:06, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>> ...
> ... snip ...
>> There's no doubt that personal attendance is the best way to get a full
>> understanding of how the IETF works, but remote participation is
>> supposed to work.
> I fully agree. However, I've found that the tools we use for remote
> participation in the IETF are, IMO, a bit archaic.
There is no reason ComeToMeeting or other service like it is not used to 
fully integrate a WG allowing remote participation. For those that dont 
their charter is the key thing - i.e. whether they also need to actually 
not do any formal deciding of anything at meetings and votes or work 
done at meeting is like all other NoteWell constrained IP, tied to the 
IETF's collection-consensus processes.
> Don't get me wrong, I
> fully support having Jabber rooms and audio streams, but, its really
> difficult to follow a meeting that way, but I've had much better remote
> participation experiences in other conferences than I've had with the IETF.

That said - there is a larger issue and its how individual WG's operate 
relative to any responsibility to provide online access to meetings. I 
think that the Remote Participation Rules for the WG are part of the WG 
charter and need to be included so everyone knows what the IP collection 
and NoteWell Management Practice for that WG is going to be since each 
standard process is different to some extent. That said - the process 
and framework for each WG effort is also independent from most others as 
well with the limited exception of instances where a WG served a whole 
class of layer-2 or layer-3 application contexts like PKIX did for 
instance.

What I propose - and this may sound initially wonky but think about it - 
that someone, and it should be one or a group of the IPR people I think, 
put together a set of "WG Charter Templates" as an Internet-Draft(s). 
What no one has stepped to yet is that processes inside WG;s need the 
same type of resolution in their make up as things like the BCP78/79 
specify for the higher-level (boilerplate) issues.

The template should have in it a set of models which can be selected in 
a cafeteria style selection for "REMOTE PARTICIPATION RULES AND 
IMPLICATIONS". This would specify IP processing workflows for how 
NoteWell controlled content was brought into the group through meetings 
and what archival processes would be necessary for that as well. That 
way everyone knows what they are getting into and the framework for the 
WG's practices are set during its operations.

This actually will work and would help the organization out a lot - I 
hope you can address the idea and what power it would give the IETF 
without cringing that it is me suggesting it.

Todd
>
> Meetecho is a good starting point, but it's not available in most
> sessions and the quality of the video feed is very poor. It also suffers
> from reliability issues where people get dropped from the session.
>
> Having Meetecho available in most WG sessions would be a great bonus for
> remote participants. If this is not possible, I think we should consider
> having a registration mechanism for remote participants so the resources
> can be better managed.
>
> The key here is having the remote participants in mind, as a real
> constituency. So far this is not the case, they are almost an
> afterthought. Meetecho service can be improved including using real
> cameras (not webcams attached to a notebook's display) and providing
> adequate mounting points for the cameras, adequate lighting and marking
> the space where the speakers should stand in order to be better captured
> by the camera.
>
> Warm regards,
>
> ~Carlos
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2013.0.2793 / Virus Database: 2629/5893 - Release Date: 11/13/12
>
>


-- 
Regards TSG
"Ex-Cruce-Leo"

//Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended recipient.

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]