Re: Future F2F meetings?

On 2014-01-03 18:34, Ted Hardie wrote:
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com<mailto:mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>> wrote:
I sent the following email to IETF RTCWEB WG and MMUSIC WG chairs and W3 WG chairs - note I've gotten no response from any of the them.

Hi Mary,

The RTCWEB chairs so far have not gotten confirmation from the ADs on an interim meeting being approved; they wanted a stronger sense of the agenda, which is fair enough ("not Video codec" was good, but not sufficient).

Perhaps "more video codec discussion" is what you should propose to the ADs ;-)

Obviously, we agree that these meetings should not conflict if they both occur.

regards,

Ted




  I realize there is no perfect timing to suit everyone. And, I certainly won't insist the meetings be co-located, but I will insist that the dates of interims not conflict and that the dates allow all interested parties to attend all the interim meetings if they so chose.

Regards,
Mary.

====================================================================================





[https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif]


Hi RTCWEB WG chairs and W3C WebRTC chairs,

Just a note that the CLUE WG is also planning an interim for late May.  While I don't anticipate we would want to coordinate location (necessarily), I would like to request that the meetings do not conflict.  The University of Naples (Meetecho guys) have offered to host the CLUE meeting in Naples, so that's our current plan.   While many of the RTCWEB folks don't go to CLUE meetings, a number of CLUE contributors do attend RTCWEB meetings.

I also have a question as to whether the MMUSIC WG would be part of this interim? My guess is that the majority of WG items needing to be completed for RTCWEB by that time will be dependencies in the MMUSIC WG.  The last interim ended up being as much about MMUSIC as RTCWEB and rather than have the scramble at the last minute (after the agenda is out), I think it's prudent to consider that in the initial planning.  Obviously, if there is an MMUSIC WG interim, it's imperative that it not conflict with CLUE given that CLUE has many dependencies as well.

Thanks,
Mary.
[https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif]



On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com<mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>> wrote:

Hi,

Assuming this would be a joint meeting with the IETF RTCWEB WG, there is a 3GPP meeting in US 19-23rd May, and from my perspective it would be good if we could avoid those days. But, from a traveling perspective, the week after (or, before) would be ideal :)

Regards,

Christer



________________________________________
From: Hutton, Andrew [andrew.hutton@unify.com<mailto:andrew.hutton@unify.com>]
Sent: Monday, 23 December 2013 11:42 AM
To: Stefan Håkansson LK; public-media-capture@w3.org<mailto:public-media-capture@w3.org>; public-webrtc@w3.org<mailto:public-webrtc@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Future F2F meetings?

Hi All,

If late May is the preferred time slot for this maybe co-locating with the IMTC SuperOp would be an option many of the industries Video experts will be at the event and at least a few of the working group participants.

http://www.imtc.org/event/imtc-superop-2014/

I think it is always a good idea to co-locate to reduce travel and increase participation.

The IMTC is also looking to add some WebRTC testing to the event.

Regards
Andy




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Håkansson LK [mailto:stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com<mailto:stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>]
> Sent: 20 December 2013 13:26
> To: public-media-capture@w3.org<mailto:public-media-capture@w3.org>; public-webrtc@w3.org<mailto:public-webrtc@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Future F2F meetings?
>
> There was so far no response to this mail.
>
> But in the interest of making progress, we will start to plan for a F2F
> meeting in London (preliminary for the Media Capture TF and the WebRTC
> WG) the weekend after the London IETF meeting (meaning that the dates
> in
> question are March 7th - 9th). Let us know if you think this is a bad
> idea.
>
> The IETF rtcweb WG is also discussing a f2f meeting in late May, our
> idea is to make this a joint meeting with W3C WebRTC WG and Media
> Capture TF.
>
> Stefan for the chairs
>
> On 2013-12-12 13:07, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote:
> > Sorry for the cross posting, but this relates to both the TF and the
> WG.
> >
> > We think that f2f meetings are helpful in progressing the work - it
> > gives much higher bandwidth for the discussion. We'd like to get your
> > view about arranging f2f meetings during the first half of next year
> > (and our thinking is that both the Media Cap TF and the WebRTC WG
> should
> > meet).
> >
> > - One possibility would be to have a meeting (in London) the weekend
> > after the London IETF meeting, March 8-9 2014. The advantage would be
> > that many of the participants in our work would be there anyway
> because
> > of the IETF meeting.
> >
> > - Another would be to arrange a separate meeting in (perhaps) May
> next
> > year, possibly jointly with the rtcweb WG of the IETF.
> >
> > What do you think? Would you join? Should we do one of them (which?),
> > none or both?
> >
> > Stefan for the chairs
> >
> > P.S. I know that the WebRTC F2F in Shenzhen did not work that well
> due
> > to some special circumstances - but F2F meetings are usually very
> > productive IMO
> >
> >
>