[Standards] Fwd: Radical Solution for remote participants

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Tue Aug 13 07:31:48 UTC 2013


How much of this stuff can we do already? I know that much of (6) has been
implemented in military clients, and I suspect (2) is an application of
Jingle. (7) smells like a BOSH app, or some kind of a bot with a web UI.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Douglas Otis <doug.mtview at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:00 AM
Subject: Radical Solution for remote participants
To: John Leslie <john at jlc.net>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf at ietf.org>



On Aug 12, 2013, at 1:06 PM, John Leslie <john at jlc.net> wrote:

> Janet P Gunn <jgunn6 at csc.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Again, it strengthens the case to get it done right. This part has been
>>> working well though.
>>
>> Not necessarily.  There was one WG where I had to send an email to the WG
>> mailing list asking for someone to provide slide numbers on jabber.
>
>   ... and Janet was merely the one who _did_ so. Others did their best
> to guess at the slide numbers.
>
>   At least one-third of the sessions I listened to failed to provide
> all we are told to expect in the way of jabber support. :^(
>
>   OTOH, we _do_ get what we pay for; so I don't mean to complain.

Dear John,

You are right about getting your money's worth.  In the case of remote
participants, they are charged nothing and receive no credit for having
done so.  Often their input is ignored as well.

A radical solution for meaningful remote participation is to change how A/V
in meeting rooms operate.  This change will require a small amount of
additional equipment and slightly different room configurations.

1) Ensure exact digital interfaces driving projectors are fully available
remotely.

2) Ensure Audio access requires an identified request via XMPP prior to
enabling either a remote or local audio feed.

3) RFI tags could facilitate enabling local audio feed instead of an
identified request via XMPP.

4) In the event of the local venue loosing Internet access, the device
regulating A/V presentations must be able to operate in a virtual mode
where only remote participants are permitted to continue the meeting
proceedings.

5) Important participants should plan for alternative modes of Internet
access to remain part of the proceedings.

6) Develop a simple syntax used on XMPP sessions to:
 1) signify a request to speak on X
 2) withdraw a request to speak on X
 3) signify support of Y
 4) signify non-support of Y
 5) signal when a request has been granted or revoked.  For local
participants this could be in the form of a red or green light at their
microphone.

7) Develop a control panel managed by chairs or their proxies that
consolidate and sequence requests and log support and nonsupport
indications and the granting of requests.

8) Chairs should be able to act as proxies for local participants lacking
access to XMPP.

9) Chairs should have alternative Internet access independent of that of
the venue's.

10) Establish a reasonable fee to facilitate remote participants who
receive credit for their participation equal to that of being local.

11) The device regulating A/V presentations must drive both the video and
audio portions of the presentations.  A web camera in a room is a very poor
replacement.

12) All video information in the form of slides and text must be available
from the Internet prior to the beginning of the meeting.

Regards,
Douglas Otis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20130813/25b455d3/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list