Re: [Debconf-discuss] Talk lengths
+++ martin f krafft [2014-09-26 13:06 +0200]:
> also sprach Gaudenz Steinlin <email@example.com> [2014-09-25 12:13 +0200]:
> > I agree with this. We should encourage more technical design
> > discussions. What's currently holding up teams to have such
> > discussions at Debconf?
> - presentation style room setup
> - short period of time (45 minutes is hardly enough for in-depth
> discussion, is it?)
You can cover an item or 3, if the subject matter is properly
> - the expectation to have it all on video and hence the requirement
> to pass around the microphone, which I think hurts natural
> exchange in a physical space.
> Now, I agree with Wookey that it would be nice to build an
> all-inclusive atmosphere for these. And Paul's suggestion might be
> worthwhile to pick up. But still, I think telepresence of any form
> is going to dampen the amount of discussion/BoF interaction that is
> going to happen.
That's the point about the setup having mics on stands in the middle
and people who expect/want to say anything sit in the first row or
two. Those people are not now constrained by the mic-passing problem
so can have a natural discussion. Audio is broadcast, IRC is on the
This makes it possible to both have an actual discussion/BOF and
interact remotely (although that's still not very satisfatory due to
lag and not being able to interrupt anyone). Goldfish+video is harder
than goldfish+audio - something to think about.
I've done it with a video/audio remote presence too which allows
better interaction (still lag-limited)- we could experiment with this
stuff more now we have our webRTC infra and decent free tools
(jitmeet, et al). I suspect that if it actually worked well (and
people knew in advance of important discussions), we'd get more remote
Principal hats: Linaro, Emdebian, Wookware, Balloonboard, ARM