- jeromel's home page
- Posts
- 2020
- 2019
- 2018
- 2017
- 2016
- 2015
- December (1)
- November (1)
- October (2)
- September (1)
- July (2)
- June (1)
- March (3)
- February (1)
- January (1)
- 2014
- 2013
- 2012
- 2011
- 2010
- December (2)
- November (1)
- October (4)
- August (3)
- July (3)
- June (2)
- May (1)
- April (4)
- March (1)
- February (1)
- January (2)
- 2009
- December (3)
- October (1)
- September (1)
- July (1)
- June (1)
- April (1)
- March (4)
- February (6)
- January (1)
- 2008
- My blog
- Post new blog entry
- All blogs
Proposed plan for VTC
Updated on Mon, 2014-12-01 08:07. Originally created by jeromel on 2014-11-29 08:33.
In order to propose a possible plan forward, I would like to propose the following path (putting as little historical info as possible):
In order to propose a possible plan forward, I would like to propose the following path (putting as little historical info as possible):
- first, in order to NOT go into circles, I suggest we drop the discussion of Vidyo and Fuze or whatever else.
We have SeeVogh and BlueJeans on the table - I preferred Fuze over BlueJeans and Vidyo (I have horrible experience with it 50% of the time), some having a foot in the LHC like Vidyo as it would make life easier ... but this is NOT the way we should decide becaue (a) BNL has NOT acquired any other subscription than the SRN or BJ one and (b) we should base our decision on functionality and requirements balance with cost/performance/stability.
- The requirements which were used to determine the best option in 2012 (when ITD was opened to prospect a few and before they locked in BlueJeans) where plain and simple and I list some of them here - they were biased toward our understanding and needs appearing in EVO ...
- Conference access via a standalone GUI
- Conference access via a phone-bridge
- Conference can have video broadcast
- Conference participants may share their desktop / slides with the audience
- Miscellaneous control such as muting, turn on/off video possible by individual as well as conference ownwer (ability to disable all audio and re-enable for example a plus)
- Possibility of support for access from SmartDevice (smartphone) + possibly, intergation to H323/SIP for integartion with other tools
- Chat box with all participants or selected participants (conference global chat or participant to participant messages)
- Scheduled meetings unconstrained (many within the same time slot)
- Week long reservations for conferences possibility
- Possibility to have opened meetings (no end time) - this is use by S&C and Operation (so a call can be made at ANY time)
- Any STAR user may create a conference/meeting in the system
- Calls can be public or private (requires access code)
- EVO/SeeVogh "Community" like grouping (STAR users are part of the "STAR" community and apart from a few "guest", only those may attend)
- Upper level control and management of whom belong to the community (if left STAR, removed ... which brings our peace of mind)
- Ability to have a dashboard with all STAR "Community" meeting seen on one place ("at a glance" view)
Q: which of those requirements are NOT fundamental and we are willing to drop?
- A few minor considerations
- Cost is already explained (and I have voiced my opinion - when in the same sentence, we speak of the need of saving money and at the same time, willing to go for a product x3 more expensive, I can't stop thinking the logic is flaw and the decision very odd - but that's me / I don't decide on where the money is spent at the end).
- The issue of pushing us toward the ITD solution came before - we were very well advised not to as those solutions are all dead now.
- Another fact is that we have had many VTC at the same time at BNL so, I think the issue is really to focus on the requirements and functionality STAR needs
- Which comes to ...
We MUST test BlueJeans to really be able to speak about it. IMHO, it is not useful to ask left and right for opinions - other groups work differently than STAR and other groups tested BlueJEans in mass while the request to do so in March 2012 saw ONE handful of testers in STAR and no sustained use (I have the stat). The question is why? We can answer this by serious tetsing.
I propose we do the following- Switch the management meeting to BlueJeans
- Switch the PWGC meeting to BlueJeans
- ... and acquire experience.
- We also MUST make sure the requirements (such as "Any STAR user may create a conference/meeting in the system") can be accomplished with BlueJeans and wherever they cannot, answer the question "can we live without it"?
- Then we re-evaluate this question in a month with facts (rather that gossip and second-hand say) and decide of the next step which could be
- SeeVogh is best for STAR
- BlueJeans is fine for STAR
- A combination of BlueJeans and SeeVogh (for special cases) will be used
»
- jeromel's blog
- Login or register to post comments