[scheme-reports-wg1] meeting

[Alex Shinn]

Several people have mentioned the possibility of some sort of phone or
video conference. Initially I assumed the sheer size of the group
would make this impossible, but the number of active members seems
quite small, so if you're interested please reply.

If everyone really wants to meet at once, a more realistic solution
may be to have an IRC conference at some point.

People working together on proposals of course should make every
effort to meet often in smaller groups.

--
Alex

[Arthur A. Gleckler]

On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Alex Shinn <alex...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Several people have mentioned the possibility of some sort of phone or
> video conference.  Initially I assumed the sheer size of the group
> would make this impossible, but the number of active members seems
> quite small, so if you're interested please reply.

I'm interested, if only to "meet" everyone.

Also, is anyone planning to go to the Workshop on Scheme & Functional
Programming in Montreal in August? I'm hoping to make it.

[Brian Harvey]

I'm interested, especially if it's on a weekend -- life is hectic
right now especially weekdays.

[Alex Shinn]

"Arthur A. Gleckler" <sch...@speechcode.com> writes:

> Also, is anyone planning to go to the Workshop on Scheme & Functional
> Programming in Montreal in August? I'm hoping to make it.

Unfortunately I don't think I'll be able to make it - it's
awfully far for me :(

--
Alex

[Neil Van Dyke]

I'm not on the WG1 member list, but am on WG2, and will try to get to
the Workshop this year.

A WG1&WG2 BoF session or other informal meeting at the Workshop might be
good.

I suggest that any such meeting be social rather than business. Locking
a bunch of Scheme implementers in a hotel suite and telling them to
reach consensus on anything would only result in dead Scheme implementers.

Arthur A. Gleckler wrote at 04/27/2010 10:22 PM:
> Also, is anyone planning to go to the Workshop on Scheme & Functional
> Programming in Montreal in August? I'm hoping to make it.
>

--
http://www.neilvandyke.org/

[Arthur A. Gleckler]

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Neil Van Dyke <ne...@neilvandyke.org> wrote:
> I suggest that any such meeting be social rather than
> business.  Locking a bunch of Scheme implementers in a hotel suite
> and telling them to reach consensus on anything would only result in
> dead Scheme implementers.

I agree, especially since so few of the members of WG1 are likely to
make it. Still, I'd love to meet everyone I can.

[Alex Shinn]

Neil Van Dyke <ne...@neilvandyke.org> writes:

> I'm not on the WG1 member list, but am on WG2, and will try to get to
> the Workshop this year.

If you have post privileges to this list, you're a member.

The official list is at:

http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/MemberPagesWorkingGroupOne

If anyone there does not wish to serve as a member of WG1,
let me know and I'll remove you.

--
Alex

[Aaron W. Hsu]

Alex writes:

> Several people have mentioned the possibility of some sort of phone or
> video conference. Initially I assumed the sheer size of the group
> would make this impossible, but the number of active members seems
> quite small, so if you're interested please reply.

I don't know if I have mentioned this, and I probably haven't since I
am so behind on my email. I am interested in having a number of
conference calls or meetings or virtual meetings or any sort of time
when we can get together and hash out ideas in a mostly real time
context. I'm in favor of a phone conference while we are all connected
to a paste bot and an IRC/ICB channel.

Aaron W. Hsu

[Aaron W. Hsu]

While I think that we shouldn't make any decisions when everyone isn't
there, I do think that it would be fun to hash out various Scheme
topics and generally improve our education regarding Scheme together,
pulling from out collective knowledge. I would be in favor of an
informal hacking and social gathering where some of us could get
together and brainstorm ideas, without the requirements that we have
to necessarily be productive and focus on real work. I think this
would be fun and useful to the whole group as we would all learn
something. It would also avoid anyone dying. :-)

A physical meet-up for those who could make it would be quite cool.

Aaron W. Hsu

[Arthur A. Gleckler]

On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Aaron W. Hsu <arc...@sacrideo.us> wrote:
> While I think that we shouldn't make any decisions when everyone isn't
> there, I do think that it would be fun to hash out various Scheme
> topics and generally improve our education regarding Scheme together,
> pulling from out collective knowledge. I would be in favor of an
> informal hacking and social gathering where some of us could get
> together and brainstorm ideas, without the requirements that we have
> to necessarily be productive and focus on real work. I think this
> would be fun and useful to the whole group as we would all learn
> something. It would also avoid anyone dying. :-)
>
> A physical meet-up for those who could make it would be quite cool.

Sounds good to me. I'm going to try to make it.

[Alaric Snell-Pym]

On 01/05/2010 04:50, Aaron W. Hsu wrote:

> I don't know if I have mentioned this, and I probably haven't since I
> am so behind on my email. I am interested in having a number of
> conference calls or meetings or virtual meetings or any sort of time
> when we can get together and hash out ideas in a mostly real time
> context. I'm in favor of a phone conference while we are all connected
> to a paste bot and an IRC/ICB channel.

Yes, that'd be fun. I'm not sure if I'd be able to make one since I have
little control over my schedules these days, but I would if I could!

>
> Aaron W. Hsu
>

ABS

--
Alaric Snell-Pym
http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/

[Alex Shinn]

On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Brian Harvey <b...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> I'm interested, especially if it's on a weekend -- life is hectic
> right now especially weekdays.

Weekend seems most likely. How about the first weekend
of June, the 4th to 6th? We're spread across at least 3
continents making the time difficult, but if we aim for
8am Saturday morning on the US West Coast it will
be 4pm GMT and midnight in Tokyo.

--
Alex

[Aaron W. Hsu]

On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 09:50 +0900, Alex Shinn wrote:

> Weekend seems most likely. How about the first weekend
> of June, the 4th to 6th? We're spread across at least 3
> continents making the time difficult, but if we aim for
> 8am Saturday morning on the US West Coast it will
> be 4pm GMT and midnight in Tokyo.

I could probably handle that. Would this be a phone conference call or
something like ICB/IRC?

Aaron W. Hsu

[Arthur A. Gleckler]

> Weekend seems most likely.  How about the first weekend
> of June, the 4th to 6th?  We're spread across at least 3
> continents making the time difficult, but if we aim for
> 8am Saturday morning on the US West Coast it will
> be 4pm GMT and midnight in Tokyo.

Sounds good to me. I'd prefer some sort of audio conference call
(e.g. phone, Skype, etc.), perhaps with IRC as an extra channel. That
way I'm less likely to type my hands off just trying to keep up with
you all!

[Aaron W. Hsu]

*chuckle* I'd be curious if there were a correlation between amount of
verbage on this list and the typing speed of the various contributors.

Aaron W. Hsu

[Alex Shinn]

On May 19, 11:45 am, "Arthur A. Gleckler" <sch...@speechcode.com>
wrote:

Yes, I suggest a Skype conference since it's free.

We can allow chat via #scheme on irc.freenode.net
which has a pastebot, unless people want a private
channel? I suppose without the phone context the
messages there could confuse the other users.

--
Alex

[Neil Van Dyke]

I would be curious to see how an audio chat of more than 2 or 3 WG
people at once could be managed to be productive. Perhaps some
turn-taking structure?

Alex Shinn wrote at 05/18/2010 11:09 PM:
> Yes, I suggest a Skype conference since it's free.
>

Unfortunately, Skype is a platform that is intentionally closed and
proprietary. I'll feel a little odd setting up a (throwaway)
non-open-source computer just to use closed Skype so that I can
participate in an open standards process.

> We can allow chat via #scheme on irc.freenode.net which has a pastebot, unless people want a private channel?

Freenode is a good choice for IRC network, but I suggest a channel other
than #scheme. #scheme is its own community, and perhaps either the WG
would be taking over the channel temporarily (precluding the channel's
normal interactions) or there would be crosstalk with the channel's
normal interactions. However, I suppose that someone could do an
informal poll of #scheme people now to gauge how welcome the WG would be.

> I suppose without the phone context the messages there could confuse the other users.
>

Perhaps a fast typist could transcribe the audio to IRC in real time
(aided by some turn-taking structure). Or perhaps that's getting too
complicated.

--
http://www.neilvandyke.org/

[Alex Shinn]

On May 19, 12:46 pm, Neil Van Dyke <n...@neilvandyke.org> wrote:
>
> Alex Shinn wrote at 05/18/2010 11:09 PM:
>
> > Yes, I suggest a Skype conference since it's free.
>
> Unfortunately, Skype is a platform that is intentionally closed and
> proprietary.  I'll feel a little odd setting up a (throwaway)
> non-open-source computer just to use closed Skype so that I can
> participate in an open standards process.

More closed and proprietary than the phone companies? :)

Do you have an alternative suggestion?

--
Alex

[Arthur A. Gleckler]

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Neil Van Dyke <ne...@neilvandyke.org> wrote:
> Unfortunately, Skype is a platform that is intentionally closed and
> proprietary.  I'll feel a little odd setting up a (throwaway)
> non-open-source computer just to use closed Skype so that I can participate
> in an open standards process.

I understand the objection, but you shouldn't have to set up a whole
separate computer. Skype at least runs on Linux.

Does anyone have experience with open alternatives?

[Aaron W. Hsu]

On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 21:00 -0700, Alex Shinn wrote:

> Do you have an alternative suggestion?

Some XMPP Clients, such as Pidgin, support audio via XMPP. I haven't
used it, so I'm not sure if conferencing is a possibility or not. I'd be
willing to test with someone if no one knows if this will work or not.

Aaron W. Hsu

[Aaron W. Hsu]

On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 21:23 -0700, Arthur A. Gleckler wrote:
> Does anyone have experience with open alternatives?

I worked for a company a few years ago that successfully used Audio chat
over XMPP with pre-existing tools. I can't remember the name of the
client now, but I believe XMPP audio has become more widespread. Maybe
we could look into that? From what I remember it worked mostly out of
the box.

Aaron W. Hsu

[Neil Van Dyke]

Joke about phone companies appreciated, :) but I'd say that Skype is even more closed and proprietary, technologically.

I believe that an open, monetarily-free alternative would be something based on IETF SIP and using only layered open standards and networks.

Another open option would be to base the conference accessible through POTS and let everyone access through their favorite voice device or software.

I'm not going to volunteer to coordinate any teleconferencing myself, since I'm still having trouble tracking the multiple media that the WGs are already using.

--
http://www.neilvandyke.org/

[Aaron W. Hsu]

On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 00:26 -0400, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> I believe that an open, monetarily-free alternative would be something
> based on IETF SIP and using only layered open standards and networks.
>
> Another open option would be to base the conference accessible through
> POTS and let everyone access through their favorite voice device or
> software.
>
> I'm not going to volunteer to coordinate any teleconferencing myself,
> since I'm still having trouble tracking the multiple media that the
> WGs are already using.

There are some relatively easy to use voice conferencing services that
would let us work over the phone, and some provide automatic recording
of these calls for our sake. This is at least another option, and it
might be a good one, if the service can provide local call-in numbers
for the various locations wherein rest our Scheme committee.

One point in favor of this solution: I've found them to be much more
reliable than Skype and other consumer class audio solutions. I don't
know if we want to be hassling with things like port numbers and
netdrops when we're trying to have a friendly conversation.

Aaron W. Hsu

[Arthur A. Gleckler]

> One point in favor of this solution: I've found them to be much more
> reliable than Skype and other consumer class audio solutions. I don't
> know if we want to be hassling with things like port numbers and
> netdrops when we're trying to have a friendly conversation.

I agree. I've been through many meetings that were delayed for a long
time while people fought with the audio conferencing system. We
should definitely have a dress rehearsal, or each participant should
at least participate in one test call in advance with one other
participant. That will save us a lot of grief.

[Aaron W. Hsu]

On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 21:45 -0700, Arthur A. Gleckler wrote:
> We
> should definitely have a dress rehearsal, or each participant should
> at least participate in one test call in advance with one other
> participant. That will save us a lot of grief.

If people are seriously interested in an XMPP solution, I'm willing to
look into this and make it happen, as I've had some experience with this
in the past.

Aaron W. Hsu

[Arthur A. Gleckler]

> If people are seriously interested in an XMPP solution, I'm willing to
> look into this and make it happen, as I've had some experience with this
> in the past.

I'd be happy to do a trial run.

[John Cowan]

Neil Van Dyke scripsit:

> I would be curious to see how an audio chat of more than 2 or 3 WG
> people at once could be managed to be productive. Perhaps some
> turn-taking structure?

Based on my experiences in the W3C's Core XML WG, no formal turn-taking
structure is really needed. The chair works through the agenda, and
people just talk, with Ethernet-style backoff when there are collisions.
Issues are usually put in the negative: "Does anyone disagree with ..."
so that silence gives consent.

Based on my experiences with the Scheme SC, I'd much rather use a commercial
conferencing service than Skype, if someone can bear the cost. While I was
still at Google, I had access to such a thing, but no longer.

> Freenode is a good choice for IRC network, but I suggest a channel other
> than #scheme. #scheme is its own community, and perhaps either the WG
> would be taking over the channel temporarily (precluding the channel's
> normal interactions) or there would be crosstalk with the channel's
> normal interactions.

+1

> Perhaps a fast typist could transcribe the audio to IRC in real time
> (aided by some turn-taking structure). Or perhaps that's getting too
> complicated.

It's too hard. Slip up once and you're behind forever. The main utility
of an IRC channel is to do things like enter an URL when someone makes
reference to a document.

--
A mosquito cried out in his pain, John Cowan
"A chemist has poisoned my brain!" http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
The cause of his sorrow co...@ccil.org
Was para-dichloro-
Diphenyltrichloroethane. (aka DDT)

[Aaron W. Hsu]

My experiences in examining this thus far have lead me to the belief
that an XMPP based P2P solution is not going to work. The clients I
tried on Linux just didn't have any measure of reliability.

On the other hand, in my search, I discovered a number of open SIP
Softphone alternatives. Ekiga and Blink both seem to be reliable
conferencing solutions, and there are a number of free SIP2SIP services
available. If you are willing, I'd like to test how Ekiga's conference
rooms work and see if they are okay. I've run some local tests and the
person to person chat seems to work very well.

My current SIP address is <sip:arc...@ekiga.net>. I'll be available on
that line whenever I can test the conferencing.

I'm also willing to test out some Skype stuff, but the last time I tried
to make Skype work on Linux, it was a harrowing experience, to say the
least.

Aaron W. Hsu

[Benjamin L. Russell]

*Chuckle* FWIW, my typing speed is 62 wpm. I've been undergoing a
recent job transition, and haven't had much time lately to post much
verbiage on this list, so I doubt that my correlation is accurate. ;).
YMMV.

-- Benjamin L. Russell
--
Benjamin L. Russell / DekuDekuplex at Yahoo dot com
http://dekudekuplex.wordpress.com/
Translator/Interpreter / Mobile: +011 81 80-3603-6725
"Furuike ya, kawazu tobikomu mizu no oto." -- Matsuo Basho^

[Benjamin L. Russell]

"Aaron W. Hsu" <arc...@sacrideo.us> writes:

> Arthur writes:
>
> [...]

>
> I would be in favor of an
> informal hacking and social gathering where some of us could get
> together and brainstorm ideas, without the requirements that we have
> to necessarily be productive and focus on real work. I think this
> would be fun and useful to the whole group as we would all learn
> something. It would also avoid anyone dying. :-)
>
> A physical meet-up for those who could make it would be quite cool.

I'm in favor of both ideas, but probably won't be able make it to
Montreal, because I live in Tokyo. Are there any suggestions for a
meet-up in Tokyo anytime soon? Last year, there was a local
"Shibuya.lisp" meeting where I got to meet Shiro Kawai, a Scheme
developer; it'd be fun to meet some other Scheme developers here, too.

[Alex Shinn]

"Aaron W. Hsu" <arc...@sacrideo.us> writes:

> My current SIP address is <sip:arc...@ekiga.net>. I'll be available on
> that line whenever I can test the conferencing.

My address is alex....@sip2sip.info if you want to test.

--
Alex

[Alex Shinn]

DekuDe...@Yahoo.com (Benjamin L. Russell) writes:

> I'm in favor of both ideas, but probably won't be able make it to
> Montreal, because I live in Tokyo. Are there any suggestions for a
> meet-up in Tokyo anytime soon? Last year, there was a local
> "Shibuya.lisp" meeting where I got to meet Shiro Kawai, a Scheme
> developer; it'd be fun to meet some other Scheme developers here, too.

I live in Tokyo as well, I may try to make it to a
Shibuya.lisp meeting at some point.

--
Alex

[Aaron W. Hsu]

On Sun, 2010-05-23 at 12:46 +0900, Alex Shinn wrote:
> My address is alex....@sip2sip.info if you want to test.

Thanks, I'm going to be testing some time, but it appears that there are
a couple of gotchas that I want to make sure aren't going to cause
problems.

Aaron W. Hsu

[Arthur A. Gleckler]

Is the meeting still planned for 8am PT Sat? If so, what technology
will we use?

Thanks.

[Alex Shinn]

"Arthur A. Gleckler" <sch...@speechcode.com> writes:

> Is the meeting still planned for 8am PT Sat? If so, what technology
> will we use?

As we haven't settled on a means of communication or tested
it out yet, I think we should push the meeting back a week.

If we can't find something convenient for everyone we'll
just have to vote.

--
Alex

[Arthur A. Gleckler]

> If we can't find something convenient for everyone we'll
> just have to vote.

Sounds good. We could add it to the ballot.

[Arthur A. Gleckler]

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Aaron W. Hsu <arc...@sacrideo.us> wrote:
> My experiences in examining this thus far have lead me to the belief
> that an XMPP based P2P solution is not going to work. The clients I
> tried on Linux just didn't have any measure of reliability.

One thing that we might try is Google Talk, which is free and uses XMPP:

<http://code.google.com/apis/talk/open_communications.html#protocols>

The Google Talk plug-ins are available for Mac and Windows, but not
yet for Linux. Does anyone have any experience connecting to Google
Talk with a Linux XMPP client? If this works, it might make a good
choice. Even if people ended up using Mac or Windows machines for
convenience on this call, at least there wouldn't be the objection
that we were using proprietary protocols.

Just brainstorming.

[Aaron W. Hsu]

On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 20:57 -0700, Arthur A. Gleckler wrote:
> Does anyone have any experience connecting to Google
> Talk with a Linux XMPP client?

So, initially I thought this would be the better way to go. Then I
realized that there's a lot of variance in XMPP clients on Linux, and
many of them may or may not support audio in the same way. I ran some
tests with some friends around here and we had a bear of a time getting
XMPP audio to work. We've had more success with SIP/H.323 technologies
such as Ekiga, which used to be GnomeMeeting, and Blink on Mac. There
still appear to be some bugs that need working out even on those
systems, though. Skype has also been successful for small scale tests (I
think there is some sort of hard limit that is much lower than the SIP
conference rooms), but modern audio systems like pulseaudio apparently
cause a bit of trouble with Skype. Right now I've had the most success
with Ekiga and Blink and Ekiga.net addresses, but I'm still playing with
things. If someone comes up with a rock solid solution before I come up
with one, more power to them.

Aaron W. hsu