On Mon Jul 17 16:10:49 2006, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Also, you can't always get the audio, and if often cuts, and is
generally quite noisy, and people tend to forget to come to
microphones in the heat of the moment.
On 17-jul-2006, at 16:56, Melinda Shore wrote:
Although I did jabber scribing for a couple of sessions the past
I don't see all that much value in doing that: the audio feeds are
much more useful for following what's going on.
As the number of meeting groups grow and the meetings become more
densely packed, the jabber transcripts are useful for following
what's going on in a meeting you're not in, as well as providing
Yes, I've heard that before.
But anyway, if we're going to continue to allow the meetings
to grow in significance (as a matter of process) it seems to me
that the remote participation tools become more important, not
Did I say it should become less important? I don't see how the
meetings are growing in significance, though.
I think Melinda's intention was to suggest that they ought to be.
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave(_at_)cridland(_dot_)net -
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
Ietf mailing list