At 11:41 PM 12/21/00 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
At 07:33 AM 12/22/00 +0100, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
At 20:17 21/12/2000 -0500, Tony Hansen wrote:
...an IRC server with one channel per working group and BOF, as part of
the "remote participation" effort?
if some organization were to volunteer (and advertise!) this for
Minneapolis, it could be fun to try.....with the number of laptops in the
rooms, we could see an interesting example of simultaneous multilevel
conversations......
My impression is that the primary benefit of real-time chat/instant-msging
in a working group is for PRIVATE exchanges, to consider contributions and
tactics by subsets of participants. One, open channel for the wg won't
help that.
IRC lets you engage in a private side-conversation with any other
participant in the group (I understand -- I haven't actually done it).
I think the idea of having an IRC service is great, preferably with someone
in the meeting taking notes into it. This way, those that can't fit in the
room can still have a chance of following the general drift and adding
comments.
#g
------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne Content Technologies Ltd.
Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<Graham(_dot_)Klyne(_at_)mimesweeper(_dot_)com>
------------------------------------------------------------