W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > March 2018

Re: Proposal: a f2f meeting in conjunction with IETF 102

From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 06:13:21 +0000
To: Varun Singh <varun@callstats.io>, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
CC: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>, WebRTC WG <public-webrtc@w3.org>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Message-ID: <HE1PR07MB341863567BB2E5F62C894A9BC9D60@HE1PR07MB3418.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
On 16/03/18 23:35, Varun Singh wrote:
> We’d be interested in joining although prefer the meeting decoupled from the IETF.
> 
> Is there a good reason to couple the interim with the IETF?

Our thinking here was: traveling costs (money, time, etc.), and the 
attendance rate might be better if we do it in conjunction with an event 
many will attend anyway.

Of course there are downsides to this approach: we'd meet at the 
weekend, attendants would have to be away from home even longer than 
planned, conflict with other IETF things (hackathons, ...), and so on.

As said, it was just a proposal, and we're looking for input on the best 
way to get to a well attended and productive f2f!

> 
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 at 14.30, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com
> <mailto:pthatcher@google.com>> wrote:
> 
>      I think meeting on a weekend would make it much more likely that we'd miss
>      important participants.  Personally, I'd vote strongly against a Sunday meeting.
> 
>      On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 4:09 AM Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca
>      <mailto:fluffy@iii.ca>> wrote:
> 
> 
>          I think a 1.5 day meeting on the sat/sun before IETF 102 would make sense.
> 
>          I would like to spend a bunch of the time talking about what is the
>          actually functionality we don't have today that we would like to add or
>          improve and whiteboard out ways we might do it.
> 
> 
> 
>>         On Mar 14, 2018, at 4:18 PM, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com
>>         <mailto:pthatcher@google.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         I think NV is an important topic and it makes sense to have a f2f
>>         meeting about it.  I'm inclined to say the more time the better (a
>>         half day doesn't seem like enough).  Two days sounds great, but it
>>         seems hard to squeeze two days into an IETF week(end).
>>
>>         A long time ago, we had f2f interims independent of IETF meetings. 
>>         Would one of those make sense?
>>
>>         I'm fine either way (piggybacking on IETF or not).  My main concern
>>         would be that enough people come that it would be a worthwhile meeting.
>>
>>         On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:12 AM Stefan Håkansson LK
>>         <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com
>>         <mailto:stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>> wrote:
>>
>>             Hi,
>>
>>             we'd like to know what people feel about arranging a f2f the weekend
>>             before IETF 102 in Montreal. (Meaning July 13-14)
>>
>>             We've heard wishes to discuss how we should get started on NV, and
>>             other
>>             topics (like testing, or getting webrtc-pc to PR, for example) could
>>             perhaps also be fruitful to discuss.
>>
>>             So, would this be a good idea? If so, should it be a
>>             half-day/full-day/two-day meeting? What topics should we focus on?
>>
>>             All input is welcome!
>>
>>             Stefan for the chairs
>>
> 
> -- 
> Founder, CEO, callstats.io <http://callstats.io>
> http://www.callstats.io
> 
> Interested in networking, media quality, and diagnostics.
> We are hiring!: www.callstats.io/jobs/ <http://www.callstats.io/jobs/>
> 


Received on Saturday, 17 March 2018 06:14:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:41 UTC