On 17-jul-2006, at 16:35, Melinda Shore wrote:
it seems reasonable to me to make
a decent, good-faith effort without getting overly bogged down
in "where should we meet?" discussions, and really try to get
the remote participation thing nailed down a little better. The
ratio of good to bad remote meeting input has improved a lot
over the past year or so but there are still too many working
groups without a Jabber scribe in the room (which prevents remote
listeners from providing inputs), etc.
Why do you need a jabber _scribe_ for input? I think the idea of
projecting the jabber discussion on a screen is interesting, although
in theory it should be unnecessary as everyone can log in to jabber
on their laptop.
But the problem is that we don't know what jabber is to us: is it a
low-bandwidth copy of the audio and/or a live version of the notes,
or is it an extra out of band channel?
Although I did jabber scribing for a couple of sessions the past week
I don't see all that much value in doing that: the audio feeds are
much more useful for following what's going on. I really like using
jabber to insert comments without the need to go up to the mike and
interrupt what's going on there (or stand in line until the
discussion is on a very different subject).
One thing that could help here is reduce the audio lag. It's quite
common to see something appear in jabber before you hear it on the
audio feed. A long delay makes reacting to the audio over jabber
Ietf mailing list