[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Reducing streaming latency



On 2019-03-21 08:23 +0000, Andy Simpkins wrote:
> Hi Wookey,
> 
> Presently each talk room has a dedicated IRC channel and we try and take
> questions from IRC, typically a member of the video team will simply ask the
> question on your behalf.

Right, but if you've tried to use this you'll know that it often
doesn't work very well in practice unless you have a 'stooge'
monitoring the IRC and interjecting on your behalf. IRC can easily not
be noticed at all, and even if it is tends to get lower priority than
people in the room. And this 'being there in person priority' is
actually the main thing I think we should try to address. If we are to
significantly reduce extremely high-carbon long-distance travel to
conferences, we have to make remote attendence work as well as
being there, not be a massive disadvanatge, or otherwise highly
unsatisfactory, or as close as we can get to that.

> Reading between the lines you would like to remotely partake in Debconfs in a
> more interactive manor, be able to ask questions etc. and you see the latency
> of the video stream as a problem to this.

Correct. This is especially true for BOFs. But just being 30-seconds
behind the thread in the room (made worse by not knowing how long/realising that you
are delayed) is a real problem for responding to points or adding info.

> Does this mean that you want to interrupt the presentation, shout out your
> comment / question part way through?  We try and discourage that from in a talk
> room and certainly do not want to open that up to the internet at large  :-p

No, in exactly the same way as you don't do it in the middle of a
presentation when sat in the room, even though you could.

What matters is people (both in the room and remotely) being able to
see that you are in attendance, and to be able to interject/ask to be
recognised, on an equal(ish) basis to people in the room. That is
where we should be trying to get to.

Andy and I discussed this in some detail in the pub yeterday and
reached some conclusions about a) how something better could work and
b) practical things to try. We (mostly he :-) will write those up as a
proposal for discussion to this list.

I've now joined this list.

Wookey
-- 
Principal hats:  Linaro, Debian, Wookware, ARM
http://wookware.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: