May 2009

Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Slide 1

doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0544r0

Submission

WG Improvement Suggestions – Web Conferencing

Date: 2009-05-10

Authors:Name Affiliations Address Phone email Jon Rosdahl CSR Highland, Utah +1-801-492-4023 jrosdahl@ieee.org

May 2009

Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Slide 2

doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0544r0

Submission

AbstractDuring the January Interim Session, a request to investigate ways for

improvement to WG operations and procedures was made.During the March Plenary Session a report of several suggestions was

presented, and a discussion on possible improvements was begun. Topics of high priority were: • Improve remote meetings to a point where they can be substituted

for venue meetings• Reduce meeting expenses

– Reduce the number of meetings per year– Reduce venue costs– Change meetings to teleconference / electronic

This presentation looks at one of the promising suggestions: “Use of web tools for document sharing, polling, voting, comment

queuing.”

May 2009

Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Slide 3

doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0544r0

Submission

Topic 3: Change the method of Conducting meetings and Voting

Bullet 4: Use of web tools for document sharing, polling, voting, comment queuing

Summary:– Effectiveness of tool in supporting/improving electronic meetings

• Auditioned available tools– Many tools could be useful– Many tools do some of what is required, but no tool was universally

complete.

– Ease of use across broad variety of situations users & platforms• Learning curve will be required • User tolerance of implemented use case

– Costs to provide tools

May 2009

Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Slide 4

doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0544r0

Submission

Required Features / Comparison Criteria

• Common Presentation• Remote Control• Sharing Application• Sharing Documents• Polling/Voting• Authenticated User• Remote Editing• Easy Sign-on web/audio• Audio Bridge• Audio Price• Web Conference Price

May 2009

Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Slide 5

doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0544r0

Submission

Survey of Web Collaboration programs

– Tools that were reviewed:

• Current distributed methods

• WebEx

• MeetingZone

• Microsoft LiveMeeting

• GoToMeeting

• Glance

• Yugma

• DimDim

May 2009

Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Slide 6

doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0544r0

Submission

Audio & Web Conference Costs

• Audio Bridge and Web Conference tools have cost

• Currently that cost is covered by generous sponsors

• Toll-Free Numbers call-in is actually a higher cost than if the number used is a nominal number.

• If 10 people call in on a bridge using a “Toll-Free” number, the cost to the bridge provider can be several times higher than if non-Toll-Free number is used.

May 2009

Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Slide 7

doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0544r0

Submission

Cost Models

• Per port vs. per person– Multiple calls – cap on port+person

• Pay as you go– Multiple calls – cap on participants

• Monthly/Annual agreements– Per host license – serial calls – cap on participants

May 2009

Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Slide 8

doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0544r0

Submission

What might it cost?

• Pay as you go, overlapping sessions allowed.

• If the average cost per minute Audio is .10

• If the average cost per minute Web is .18

• April 2009 might have cost about $8,736.00– Audio bridge cost $3120

– Web conference cost $5616.00

• Monthly Average per person attending = $143.21

• Monthly Average cost per voting member = $35.23

May 2009

Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Slide 9

doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0544r0

Submission

How do we cover the cost?

• Gifts? Donations?

• Continue to rely on generous sponsors– Request more web tool sponsors

• Add a 802.11 surcharge to meeting fees– Joint Treasury issue

• Use less feature rich tools that have lower or no costs

May 2009

Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Slide 10

doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0544r0

Submission

When can we start experimenting/using?

• Before fully committing…

• Could we set up a large scale experiment with one one TG – TGmb is using web conferencing tools

– Some of the TGn proposal teams used web tools

• After choosing a finance scheme how long would it take to turning on a full service system?

May 2009

Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Slide 11

doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0544r0

Submission

References

• List of Improvement Suggestions: – https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/09/11-09-0286-05-0000-plenar

y-information-mar-09.ppt

• WikiPedia Comparison of Web conference tools:– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_conferencing_s

oftware

May 2009

Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Slide 12

doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0544r0

Submission

Backup Slides

May 2009

Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Slide 13

doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0544r0

Submission

Audio Conferencing

• “The most popular of all collaboration services. Typically provided by a service provider, audio conferencing services “bridge” or connect three or more parties together via a common telephone number. …. Price per participant average 8 pence per minute or £4.80 per participant, per hour (often less than a journey by train or the cost of petrol in travelling to a meeting — significantly less than an airline ticket). Nearly 3 billion minutes of audio conferencing will be used in the UK during 2007.”

“Using Conferencing and Collaboration to ReachCarbon Neutrality” Aug 2007, by Wainhouse Research White Paper

May 2009

Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Slide 14

doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0544r0

Submission

Web Conferencing• Typically via an email invitation, the meeting presenter will

provide a URL (a web page address) where all meeting participants “join” the presentation. The presenter then shares a slide presentation or can present nearly any PC application (financial spreadsheets, project plans, documents, etc). As the presenter changes slides or presents new information, the meeting participants PC screens are automatically updated with the new information. Web conferencing can be provided as a package with audio conferencing or as a separate service to be used in conjunction with the audio service. Prices range from a nominal cost when packaged with audio conferencing, to up to 12 pence per minute when provided separately.

“Using Conferencing and Collaboration to ReachCarbon Neutrality” Aug 2007, by Wainhouse Research White Paper

May 2009

Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Slide 15

doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0544r0

Submission

Wikipedia Comparisons

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_conferencing_software

• Wikipedia includes a survey of programs– Client platforms, license, upload capabilities, audio,

video, chat, capacity, mobile device, and break-out.

May 2009

Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Slide 16

doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0544r0

Submission

Topic #1• Reduce meeting expenses

– Reduce the number of meetings per year

– Reduce venue costs

– Change meetings to teleconference / electronic

• Synchronize IEEE and WFA meeting venues

• Delete interims , keep only plenaries

• Reduce venue cost, location, food

• Reduce the need to attend every session - Selectively drop TG activities from meetings

• Reduce the need to send as many people to a session - Fewer parallel sessions

• Charge separately for social

• Meeting frequency; Fewer but longer meetings

• Many of our organizations are going through reductions in force and travel budgets

May 2009

Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Slide 17

doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0544r0

Submission

Topic #2Improve Standards Production Process

– Process Improvement– Shorten times to publication– Increase face to face time

• Face to face meetings provide significant value especially during project

formation/start-up• TG attendance too small• Project completion takes too long• Amendments contain useless features• Bring in running code before beginning standardization• 802 needs to at least think about the possibility of evolving past the RF centric

MAC/PHY ; start an End-to-End Study Group• Establish a task force to monitor the progress of active task groups and

suggest improvements

May 2009

Jon Rosdahl, CSR

Slide 18

doc.: IEEE 802.11-09/0544r0

Submission

Topic #3Change the method of Conducting meetings and Voting

– Improve remote meetings to a point where they can be substituted for venue meetings

– Enable voting without attending a face to face

• Instate Voting during TG telecons

• Instate TG membership

• Beginning ballots not initiated during a face to face meeting

• Use of web tools for document sharing, polling, voting, comment queuing

• Use Entity voting

• No loss of voting rights due to lack of attendance if job is lost

• Drop 15 day procedural review of ballot prior to technical ballot on draft

• Voting required to maintain voting rights

• How is Online voting audited

• Don’t use telecons because of disadvantages due to time shift and language

• Copy the IETF mode of operation . Don’t rely on either face-to-face or telecons; just use email.