--On Monday, July 27, 2015 16:38 -0400 Warren Kumari
<warren(_at_)kumari(_dot_)net> wrote:
...
+1 -- often someone walks up to the mic and makes a point.
Someone else specifically wants to respond to that point, and
having them be able to quickly queue jump to be able to agree
/ disagree makes the conversation *much* more useful. In
another standards group we use Adobe Connect for (endless)
conference calls with 10 - 30 people -- Adobe lets you
virtually "rise your hand" and be put in a queue. This ends
poorly.
We will discuss something and someone will include a question /
suggestion, so you raise your hand with the answer. The person
running the meeting then goes through the queue and
eventually, after 10 or 15 minutes of random pontificating
it's your turn... at which time you can:
A: say "Yeah, I agree with what everyone else said..." -- this
is a waste of everyone's time.
B: say "I've actually tested this and the answer is 42" --
this means that the last 15 minutes of pontification was a
waste of time. C: say "Sorry, it's been so long I cannot
remember what we were talking about..." -- this simply reopens
the entire discussion and you realize no-one actually knows
what the question was.
No disagreement with the above, but suppose there is a meeting
with a handful of remote participants and a lot of people in the
room. Suppose there is some significant expertise among those
who are not physically present. Now suppose the speaker says
something that appears problematic. A slew of people in the
room dash for the microphone and start, in your words,
pontificating. The remote people start typing at the same time.
By the time they finish typing, the queue line is long and
pontification and ranting are in full bloom. Noticing that
trend and observing that nothing new and of substance is
actually being said, the Chair closes the Mic line just as the
Jabber scribe/ channel receives the remote participant message
and gets up. If the remote person actually had some knowledge
or insight that wasn't present in the room, the room doesn't get
it -- something that is especially bad news if the Chair makes a
consensus call (with or without hum) based in the in-room
discussion. Or, if the Mic line is left open but there is a
lively discussion on the floor after the remote participants
started typing, the comments, as you more or less point out,
have a high likelihood of appearing OBE or repetitive by the
time they are actually read even though they might have
important content.
I don't know if there a comprehensive solution to those problems
and to the tradeoffs involved is even possible, but that should
not stop our making incremental improvements, trying to get to
the point where the technology is _really_ not the problem, and
at least being more aware of the issues and risks.
...
When chairing I always let the jabber scribe jump to the front
of the line - it is sufficiently hard for remote participants
to interact that this allows them to actually be able to stay
engaged. It also avoids the issue where the remote person
suggests that we do $foo and so the scribe gets in line. The
first person at the mic then also suggests $foo... the queue
slowly drains and finally the scribe relays Bob's suggestion.
Everyone thinks "Gods, Bob's an idiot, we already agreed to
$foo, why is he suggesting this again, now?!" - sure they
"get" that this is a queued question, but humans have evolved
with face-to-face interactions and so there is a bit of a
break... W
Yes, exactly. See above. However, while my experience is
obviously just anecdotal, I suggest that, if you are letting (or
encouraging) the jabber scribe to jump the line, you are fairly
unusual among WG chairs. As others have suggested, this --and
probably any other mechanisms we adopt-- are going to depend
heavily on chair judgment, discretion, and sensitivity to the
dynamics for both local and remote participants in order to work
well. That, in turn, probably calls for more training and less
AD and community patience with WG Chairs who can't or won't get
with the program.
best,
john