On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 02:29:23PM +0000, Dave Cridland allegedly wrote:
I don't actually have the choice, but I find remote participation
generally okay, for the most part, albeit I have the slight advantage
of starting off my internet experience in telnet BBS systems, so I'm
generally used to the text chat thing, the lag, etc. The audio lag is
more unnerving, in the cases where the Jabber scribe is helpfully
typing in what people are going to say before they say it.
Many thanks to all the jabber scribes in those meetings I virtually
attended, and, just as important, thanks to those physically present
who also monitored and used the Jabber rooms, and thus made me feel
somewhat like an attendee (albeit in the cheap seats) rather than a
"not present".
I'm somewhat hoping that the use of the Jabber server outside the
meetings might be able to take off as a method for more
high-bandwidth discussion, paradoxically leaving more time in the
"real" meetings for the kind of presentations that Keith hates, but
this time having them aimed at cross pollination between groups and
areas.
I love what you can do in text-based systems and support the idea of
having ongoing issue-specific discussions available. In text-based
environments, input takes a little time, but everyone can speak at
once so progress can be rapid (if facilitated well when needed).
However, jabber is relatively primitive. I don't need video or audio
but I would like to be able to collaborate on a figure with you,
highlight text I'm "talking" about, that sort of thing.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf