On 17-jul-2006, at 16:56, Melinda Shore wrote:
Why do you need a jabber _scribe_ for input?
To allow remote participants to provide input.
You can't type and run upto the microphone to relay comments at the
same time...
Although I did jabber scribing for a couple of sessions the past week
I don't see all that much value in doing that: the audio feeds are
much more useful for following what's going on.
As the number of meeting groups grow and the meetings become more
densely packed, the jabber transcripts are useful for following
what's going on in a meeting you're not in, as well as providing
feedback.
Yes, I've heard that before.
By the way, was it just me or was the schedule a bit strange last
week? On wednesday and thursday we had sessions until 16.10 and then
the plenary at 17.00. That's a 50 minute break, a bit on the long
side, especially as the sesson ending at 16.10 had only a 10 minute
break before it which doesn't accommodate for sessions running late
and/or a quick discussion afterward and then walking all the way to
the other side of the palais. Ending at 19.30 / 20.00 is much better
for remote participants from the east, though.
One thing that could help here is reduce the audio lag. It's quite
common to see something appear in jabber before you hear it on the
audio feed. A long delay makes reacting to the audio over jabber
problematic.
To be honest that's not something I noticed, and I was participating
from home last week.
Maybe it was better last week than other meetings since we have
audio. I didn't use the audio last week.
But anyway, if we're going to continue to allow the meetings
to grow in significance (as a matter of process) it seems to me
that the remote participation tools become more important, not
less important.
Did I say it should become less important? I don't see how the
meetings are growing in significance, though.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf