Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Some minor suggestions #2

Open
jlivingood opened this issue Nov 11, 2021 · 3 comments
Open

Some minor suggestions #2

jlivingood opened this issue Nov 11, 2021 · 3 comments

Comments

@jlivingood
Copy link

  1. Add informative reference to https://www.iab.org/activities/workshops/network-quality/ and refer to this from the intro when the workshop is 1st noted.
  2. Change 2 instances of saying workshop was generally in Sept '21 to "from September 14-16, 2021".
  3. Sec 3 is a list of position papers but includes things like a keynote and break (copied from agenda) and perhaps those could be removed as the are not papers.
  4. Should each paper listed in Sec 3 contain an informative link to the individual paper/preso or is it sufficient to lead the section with text and a ref to all of them at https://www.iab.org/activities/workshops/network-quality/?
  5. s/Latency mean and medians are distractions from better measurements/Latency mean and medians are distractions from better measurements (e.g. p98)
  6. s/measuring ecological impact of measuring material and energy usage/measuring ecological impact of material and energy usage
  7. Sec 5.4 lists things w/o consensus. Is there a sec needed that lists things where there was consensus?
@hardaker
Copy link
Contributor

Hi Jason, thanks for the issues. Most have been corrected.

I'm not sure what e.g. p98 is referring to in your suggestion 5 though. Can you clarify?

WRT 7: the conclusions at the end of the day were generally in consensus for 5.1-5.3. I think you're stating there isn't enough indication that this is the case and needs to be better called out?

@jlivingood
Copy link
Author

jlivingood commented Nov 29, 2021 via email

@hardaker
Copy link
Contributor

Ok, that makes perfect sense (and was a definite "oh duh" moment).

Anyway, I think I'll leave out the example though as the point of the bullet is not to indicate what the better metric actually is (because there may be a debate over that, or more importantly: the point of the workshop is that we may not even know what the future best is).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants