Subject: Re: [vmeet] Requirements for improving IETF remote participation

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 23:55:18 -0500

On 1/5/2012 5:05 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Greetings again. As Ray Pelletier said on this list earlier, I have been tasked with creating a set of requirements for the IETF's remote participation system (RPS). The first draft is now at<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-genarea-rps-reqs-00>. The discussion of the requirements is happening on the "vmeet" mailing list; see<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet>.
>
> This first draft compiles many (but certainly not all!) of the comments I have heard so far, but I expect it to change a fair amount in the coming months. If you are active in the IETF, even if you rarely or never come to IETF meetings, your input is welcome.

section 1 Introduction
mention use of WebEx and (more recently) Meetocho at regular IETF meetings

========
section 3.1  Technologies Currently Used at Regular IETF Meetings
I've been told that another factor appears to be the bandwidth for the
128kbps audio stream, compared to the 8kbps audio stream used by other 
tools, like Meetecho.

========
section 3.2  Locating the Meeting Information
    alway. ???

========
section 3.2.2.  Instant Messaging and 3.2.3.  Slides
the tools agenda helps find it this info too

========
section 3.3.  Remotely Speaking at the Mic
one of my experiences: the 30 second delay prevented me from commenting 
on slides
until the presenter was several slides past

========
section 4.1.2.  Video
Re: TODO: Is there a requirement that the remote attendees see the 
slides over video? ]]]

an alternative is synchronized presentation of the slides

Re: **Requirement 00-12**: Remote attendees who are speaking over the 
audio must be visible to the local attendees.

only if the remote attendee has a webcam set up

========
section 4.1.4.  Slide Presentations

Re: [[[ TODO: Is there a requirement to support other formats? ]]]

Do you want to even get in to different versions of PDF and powerpoint 
formats?

Re: attendees as they are presented, there will be a requirement that 
the presenter can go back and forth in the slide deck. ]]]

Some chairs do real-time editing of the chair's slides on the screen. 
Many chairs also do that during agenda bashing. Such editing is totally 
lost to remote attendees.

Re: [[[ TODO: Is there a requirement that animation in PowerPoint be 
supported, or just static slides? ]]]

This is going to be a stretch -- many current tools are incapable of 
supporting that. Start with an initial requirement of supporting static 
slides.

Re:    **Requirement 00-24**: Shared real-time editing of text-only

This has great possibilities for agenda bashing as well.

========
section 4.2.1.  Requirements for Remote Participation
Re: room of local attendees because everyone has a name badge.

Well, er, um. Not everyone recognizes the local attendees either, and 
not all attendees speak their names clearly (if at all) when they start 
speaking.

Re: **Requirement 00-31**:
Should 00-30 and 00-31 be moved up much earlier? There are several 
discussions above that presume knowledge of what registration means and 
how it could work, starting at 00-04.

========
section 4.2.2.  Floor Control for Chairs

Re:    **Requirement 00-46**: The IETF Secretariat must be easily able to
Should those who are given floor control be allowed to augment that list 
to meet changing needs without going back to the Secretariat?

========
section 5.  Requirements for Supporting All-Remote Meetings

Re: Nearly all current remote participation systems have some way for
      changing slides to be presented to all remote attendees. [[[ TODO: Is
      this a requirement for the IETF RPS? ]]]

Either video of the slides or synchronized slide display must be a 
requirement.

I also have a number of nits I'll email separately.

     Tony Hansen
     [email-masked]

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 10:54:18 -0800

Hi Joel,
At 09:09 09-01-2012, Joel jaeggli wrote:
>That implies coverage of a much greater number of rooms, e.g. 16 or more
>potentialy. when you count the offices and small breakout rooms in
>addition to the 8 scheduled meeting rooms.

Yes, and it may turn into a logistical nightmare.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 11:18:17 -0800

> Yes, and it may turn into a logistical nightmare.

Or it might not. For any of the requirements we make, there will be operational effects, but not always the ones we think that will happen. The goal here is to come up with requirements for improving the remote participation experience and value to the IETF. The IETF gets to decide whether or not the requirements will be worth any additional operational overhead after finding out what that overhead is.

For example, Joel says "potentially 16 or more rooms" instead of 8. If the requirement might involve that, the IETF might start of with adding RPS to a few extra rooms and see how it goes from there.

--Paul Hoffman