On 10/24/11 6:44 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Dave CROCKER <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
On 10/24/2011 4:09 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
It's really not that big a deal. Make sure that audio is working,
that there's a Jabber scribe/Jabber room watcher
I have a concrete suggestion for WG chairs: don't ask for a "Jabber
scribe" (which makes it sound as if the hapless volunteer needs to type
everything that's said into the chatroom) but instead ask for someone to
relay comments from the chatroom to the mic.
Basic question: what has been the claimed purpose for doing jabber
I thought it was a means of produce raw minutes. A side -- and sometimes
extremely valuable -- benefit is as a relatively real-time alternative
source of information about what is being spoken; this can be quite helpful
for participants who are not native English speakers.
If neither of these purposes are worth the effort, then your suggestion
sounds dandy. If either is sufficiently valuable, then my question is why
your groups haven't needed them. (I'm expecting the answer to be that your
groups didn't feel the need; so my real question is why not?)
FWIW, I've found Jabber scribes supplementing the audio stream useful
because the audio stream alone isn't always sufficient to hear what's
going on, or to know who's speaking.
Problem is, it's a lot of work to scribe the audio, and it's not easy to
find volunteers for that task. I do think it's helpful for someone to at
least relay the names of those who step up to the mic, but that could be
done with those little RFID badges we experimented with a few times.
Ietf mailing list