Subject: Re: [vmeet] [spfbis] Meetecho support for SPFBIS WG meeting session

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 06:13:35 -0700

Hello

[Bcc to spfbis@; please follow up on [email-masked]]

The purpose of this email is two-fold; provide feedback to the 
Meetecho team and to get feedback about remote participation.

At 15:51 29-03-2012, Meetecho IETF support wrote:
>a virtual room has been reserved on the Meetecho system for Friday's 
>SPFBIS WG meeting session.

First of all, thanks to the Meetecho team for providing the service 
and for responding to the support issues in real-time.  Thanks to 
Murray Kucherawy for being Jabber scribe and Tony Hansen for stepping 
in when Murray presented; and the minute-taker, John Levine (not 
using Etherpad).

Due to the low audio quality, I was not able to tell who was speaking 
at times.  With the video feed, I could see chair (body language 
during the session) and follow the slides.  Meetecho also provides 
the slide number and title over XMPP.

There were around 20 people in the room and over 10 people and the 
Responsible Area Director in the Jabber room.  There was no 
Jabber/chair interaction as there was only one chair in the room.

It's difficult to rate the experience between Meetecho and the legacy 
remote service.  The weak point for Meetecho is audio quality whereas 
the legacy audio has about a 15 second delay.  In this case, my 
trade-off was the desire to follow this session without significant 
audio delay.

The slides used by Meetecho was from the IETF materials web 
page.  The chair called for one or more hums during the meeting.  If 
new text is projected on the screen (questions to hum on, for 
example), that would not be displayed through Meetecho.  As I could 
not see the microphone line, it was not possible to evaluate the 
importance of each issue in real-time.

There are some user interface and user issues when using Meetecho  (I 
mistakenly broadcasted video).  I used a standalone XMPP client 
instead of following the Meetecho (XMPP) chat window.

Could other remote participants for this session please provide feedback on:

  (a) What worked for you?

  (b) What did not work for you?

  (c) Could you follow the WG session?

  (d) Do you feel that you were able to participate adequately in the
      discussions?

  (e) Do you feel that you were able to participate adequately in the
      decision-making?

  (f) Do you have a better understanding of how WG issues can be
      resolved after following this session?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

P.S. Did the Meetecho team volunteer to sponsor some T-Shirts for 
AppsDir? :-)

---

From: "Rolf E. Sonneveld" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 22:31:57 +0200

On 3/30/12 3:13 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> in when Murray presented; and the minute-taker, John Levine (not using 
> Etherpad).
>
> during the session) and follow the slides.  Meetecho also provides the 
> slide number and title over XMPP.
>
> The slides used by Meetecho was from the IETF materials web page.  The 
> chair called for one or more hums during the meeting.  If new text is 
> projected on the screen (questions to hum on, for example), that would 
> not be displayed through Meetecho.  As I could not see the microphone 
> line, it was not possible to evaluate the importance of each issue in 
> real-time.
>

Being able to see the slides was very nice and contributed to a better 
understanding of what was going on at the meeting. Another nice feature 
is that you can see who is currently writing in the jabber room (when 
writing is still in progress).

>  (b) What did not work for you?

I was not able to get the audio working. Don't know why. My system is an 
Ubunut 10.x system with up to date Firefox. I used streaming via Totem 
instead.

>  (c) Could you follow the WG session?

Yes.

>  (d) Do you feel that you were able to participate adequately in the

Yes, in general I could follow the meeting quite good.

>  (e) Do you feel that you were able to participate adequately in the

Yes, although sometimes the lag was a bit of a problem, but that was 
probably not the Meetecho lag but the audio lag via Totem.

>      resolved after following this session?

In general, yes. If video and audio would be working correctly, it would 
be a nice all-in-1 experience. Don't get me wrong, I suppose part of the 
problem was not in Meetecho, but in my own (poor) system setup.

/rolf

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 21:47:08 -0400

> mistakenly broadcasted video).  I used a standalone XMPP client instead 
> of following the Meetecho (XMPP) chat window.
> 

My setup is a factor in my experience:

Provider: AT&T U-verse
Bandwidth: 5gb download, 3gb upload
Browsers: Chrome

>  (a) What worked for you?

Everything except....

>  (b) What did not work for you?

the Video Adapter. With Chrome, it didn't detect nor have install the 
java engine. I tried it with FF and it didn't seem to complete its 
initialization. I was too impatience and just stuck with Chrome.

>  (c) Could you follow the WG session?

Yes, although there was a 2-3 secs lag in Audio/Jabber scribing, it 
was adequate.

Yes.

>  (e) Do you feel that you were able to participate adequately in the

Yes, if I feel compel to raise a point, I did. Otherwise I felt the 
meeting was well covered.

>      resolved after following this session?

Yes. It was helpful in showing being involved goes a long way to be 
part of the process.

-- 
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com