Sorry for top-post.
in a purely personal capacity, having spent many MANY hours jabber
scribing in a number of WG (IPFIX, DNSext/DNSop/SIDR, plenary):
Its a thankless (mostly) task.
its exhausting for more than 30min without a break.
its impossible to participate in a WG discussion an jabber scribe.
therefore to scribe is to take yourself out of the loop (tm) in the
substance of the discussion.
Chairs oftentimes fail to recognize the timliness of jabber-scribe
forced interventions into the room. You can't scribe and queue at the
There are disputes in WG about what is, or is not, a proper record of
the session and I don't think its fair to put a jabber scribe in the
position of possibly being held 'on the record' for what they scribe.
Having said which, as a best-effort assistance, and as a vehicle for
rapid noting the flow of activity in a group, I'm all for it.
On 28/10/2009, at 3:01 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Dave CROCKER wrote:
Posting documents in a format that involves text files with very
long lines that require horizontal scrolling with many systems
is not a favor to the community or an aid to ready
wraping long lines is not a new technology
A stray thought:
While it is always better to have an explicitly appointed scribe, I
wonder whether a collaborative approach might help in the situations
they could simply be recorded, post-production is prohibitively
expensive for a time and workflow perspective but raw recording have
some utility if you are willing to spend the cycles to reconstruct
events from them.
I'm thinking that a jabber session for a meeting would permit all
participants to post their comments of what is happening as the
progresses. This would not be a public session; its sole purpose
be to make an archive of notes that could then be lightly massaged
If everyone in the meeting is recruited to assist, I suspect the
could be reasonably comprehensive.
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list