[Summit] XMPP Summit

Peter Saint-Andre - &yet peter at andyet.net
Thu Oct 8 13:56:05 UTC 2015

+ Waqas who is here in person and asked about an agenda...

On 10/8/15 1:17 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On 7 Oct 2015, at 19:07, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter at andyet.net>
> wrote:
>> On 10/3/15 12:08 AM, Edwin Mons wrote:
>>>> On 02 Oct 2015, at 16:09, Mike Taylor <bear at andyet.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 3:36 AM, Edwin Mons
>>>>> <jsf at edwinm.ik.nu> wrote:
>>>>>> On 01/10/15 23:39, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/29/15 10:27 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
>>>>>>> Sending direct with cc to summit at xmpp.org.
>>>>>>> I realize that the Summit next (!) week might be more of
>>>>>>> a meetup than a true Summit, given that only me, Matthew,
>>>>>>> Sam, and likely Fippo and Lance will attend in person. In
>>>>>>> the interest of making it as productive as possible, I'd
>>>>>>> like to hear from you all about what topics you'd like to
>>>>>>> cover.
>>>>>> BTW I will be offline Friday through Tuesday and flying to
>>>>>> Richland on Wednesday morning. Given that we'll have a
>>>>>> small group, I've arranged to use a meeting room at &yet's
>>>>>> offices for the Summit.
>>>>>> If you absolutely need to contact me between now and
>>>>>> midday Wednesday, you can text me at a number that Matthew
>>>>>> and all of the yetis have.
>>>>> I do hope remote participation will be possible.  Has this
>>>>> been looked into?
>>>> If the Talky.io creators don't have at least one laptop
>>>> showing the sessions I will be very disappointed!
>>> Well, Talky is awesome, and wouldn't mind if that would be the
>>> way to participate one bit.  There is more to actual remote
>>> participation than a laptop. Specifically, decent cameras and
>>> microphones, and possibly some form of screen sharing with the
>>> presenter. All quite possible, but it does require a bit of
>>> planning usually.
>> Where we've ended up so far is that we'll probably have something
>> of a working session to plan out MUC2 in greater detail. Not sure
>> yet about other topics. That kind of working session doesn't lend
>> itself well to remote participation (e.g. standing at the
>> whiteboard sketching things) and I don't think we'll have planned
>> presentations (although send them along if so - folks can view
>> locally instead of sharing in real time).
> I’ll be a bit put out if there’s a lot of effort going into MUC2
> without sensible remote participation, I think. I only felt I could
> justify not coming to the summit where MUC2 might be discussed
> because Board promised remote participation. Although as far as I can
> see, it should be quite possible to manage this across Talky with an
> etherpad-equivalent instead of a whiteboard, or even something like
> http://webwhiteboard.com/.

Lance and Fippo and I will put some thought into this today and see if
we can organize the physical room for success.

>> We'll definitely work to make sure we have decent mics and cameras
>> and such in the room - but I don't want to over promise (I have to
>> say that as a remote attendee of IETF/W3C/XSF/etc. events I have
>> *never* had a great experience).
> The issue I’ve had with IETF remote participation (in my more limited
> experience) has been that the local/remote contribution was
> asymmetric. With the small number of local and remote participants
> here, it feels like this should be achievable for us as long as we
> ensure the same tools are used for locals and remotes.
> What’s the timing looking like (including UTC offset!) for kicking
> things off on Friday, please? I suspect it’s going to end up being a
> long day for me on this side of the pond...

If we start at 09:00 Pacific that is 16:00 UTC. Yes, quite late to start 
on a Friday. Let me poll folks who are here in person to see if we can 
start at 08:00.

If we organize the topics sensibly (e.g., the MUC2 stuff first) then I'd 
hope we would not go too late into your evening.

Kev, might you have time to put together an overview presentation or 
writeup about MUC2 to kick things off? Doesn't need to have a great 
level of detail.

> (As an aside, I think there’s going to be value in having things like
> this entirely remotely. An afternoon session on sorting out issue X,
> etc. with the expectation that we can hammer out a protoXEP framework
> in that time)

That's a good idea!


Peter Saint-Andre

More information about the Summit mailing list