|
Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings)
2006-03-25 09:44:24
Dear Stig;
On Mar 25, 2006, at 11:27 AM, Stig Venaas wrote:
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Hello;
On Mar 25, 2006, at 1:28 AM, john(_dot_)loughney(_at_)kolumbus(_dot_)fi wrote:
Maybe we should leave the Jabber meeting rooms up all the time, and
use them for more dynamic discussions.
John
Do you mean during the meetings (which I think was done this time,
Monday - Friday) or
permanently ?
My thinking was permanently. A wg can then at any time decide to take
some specific issue to jabber.
That's cool, as long as some way is developed to cross reference
email and
jabber discussions.
I am sure that many of you have had the experience of having one
topic posted to multiple
lists, with divergent conversations developing, with some, but not
all, cross posts, and some,
but not total, overlap of participants. Now imagine that being done
with two (or more)
mail lists and two (or more) jabber chats, all going at the same
time. While it might be possible
to follow this in real time (at least, if you have nothing else to
do), it would be a lot of work
to reconstruct such a conversation after the fact presently. This
would put a severe disadvantage to those in different time zones and
anyone else who could not follow things in real time.
I know that commercial software exists to do all of this (I have
found Elluminate impressive in this regard, and
it's very cross platform, being written in Java), but whether it's
done commercially or in open source,
I think that it's something that we need to think about.
Regards
Marshall
AFAIK the previous jabber rooms were available permanently, and I
wouldn't be surprised if the new ones (rooms.jabber.ietf.org) are
either. So all I would like to ask, is that this is done. It would
then
be up to the individual wg whether they want to make use of them.
Apart from using the jabber rooms for ad-hoc discussions, they should
also be used for interim wg meetings of course.
Stig
Regards
Marshall
- original message -
Subject: Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings)
From: Stig Venaas <stig(_dot_)venaas(_at_)uninett(_dot_)no>
Date: 03/24/2006 5:01 pm
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
From: Tim Chown [mailto:tjc(_at_)ecs(_dot_)soton(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk]
Well, if we make remote participation too good, we may end up
with rather empty meeting rooms and a bankrupt IETF ;)
What we should do, given the rush of work that happens pre-ID
cutoff, is maybe look at such technology for interim
meetings, and have the IETF support some infrastructure to
help interim meetings run more
effectively, maybe even without a physical meeting venue.
Some WGs
might then run more interim virtual meetings and help
distribute the workload over the year more smoothly.
You mean like holding a bi-weekly teleconference?
VOIP is getting to the point where this is practical.
Personally I find jabber (and similar technologies) much more
convenient
than voice. I've used that a few times with a small group of
people to
discuss and solve technical problems. I feel it allows more
interactive
discussions and is also easier non-native English speakers,
I think using the wg jabber rooms we got for regular discussions of
specific issues is a great idea.
Stig
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
|
|