The asterisk paradox
There was some discussion at the last meeting about how to use asterisk in the future for meetings or even if we should. This has brought up an interesting problem: Early adoption of asterisk is slow because not everyone has the equipment to use it. People don't feel compelled to get the equipment because adoption is slow. So what do we do about it? I feel very strongly asterisk as a medium is much more efficient to use then IRC and helps bring the team together to work as a more cohesive unit. I also believe it will do the same for other groups. But we cannot do the meetings in asterisk at this time because it raises the barrier to entry by too much and provides no meeting logs. So I'd like to propose the following possible solutions. 1) Meet 15 minutes before or after the meeting for a supplemental-meeting in asterisk to shake out some things. Then continue with the meeting in IRC as normal. 2) Meetings in IRC are generally very slow, it might be worth it to do the meetings as normal but also have people log in to asterisk to bs and generally just chat, get to know each other a bit better. 3) Do as we did last week, have people who can't talk join the conference anyway and ask questions in the chat room while having someone transcribe and provide minutes. 4) ? you come up with some. In general I think 2) is most practical for now. I'd prefer 3) since I think everyone can have headphones and listen in to the main meeting and ask questions in IRC but having someone volunteer to transcribe / summarize the meeting is a huge commitment. This is a big change for us, having said that I think anyone who has used the technology will agree that it works very well. It will work even better as people start to use it more and get used to their equipment and more people feel the need to get a proper mic/head set. Fedora is very much about new technologies and early adoption. I'd love for us to be the first OSS community to use asterisk like this, and of course if Fedora is going to use it, the Infrastructure team should lead the way. Having said that, any changes like this are raising the barrier to entry and that is just a dangerous thing to do. As long as we still have IRC I think we'll be fine but this is something we must choose as a group. Thoughts? -Mike ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: The asterisk paradox
On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 11:51 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > Jonathan Steffan wrote: > > On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 11:30 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > > > >> There was some discussion at the last meeting about how to use asterisk > >> in the future for meetings or even if we should. This has brought up an > >> interesting problem: > >> > >> Early adoption of asterisk is slow because not everyone has the > >> equipment to use it. People don't feel compelled to get the equipment > >> because adoption is slow. > >> > >> So what do we do about it? I feel very strongly asterisk as a medium is > >> much more efficient to use then IRC and helps bring the team together to > >> work as a more cohesive unit. I also believe it will do the same for > >> other groups. But we cannot do the meetings in asterisk at this time > >> because it raises the barrier to entry by too much and provides no > >> meeting logs. So I'd like to propose the following possible solutions. > >> > >> 1) Meet 15 minutes before or after the meeting for a > >> supplemental-meeting in asterisk to shake out some things. Then > >> continue with the meeting in IRC as normal. > >> 2) Meetings in IRC are generally very slow, it might be worth it to do > >> the meetings as normal but also have people log in to asterisk to bs and > >> generally just chat, get to know each other a bit better. > >> 3) Do as we did last week, have people who can't talk join the > >> conference anyway and ask questions in the chat room while having > >> someone transcribe and provide minutes. > >> > > > > +1 > > > Jonathan, IIRC you were one of the team members that didn't have a > microphone. How did that work for you? If we are to use voice seriously, I would get a good microphone. I will just need to know what the plan is. The last meeting was lacking a true "transcriber" and there were some non-syncs between voice and non-voice users. If most people at least listened to the conference, it would not be as bad. I do think that we should have a per meeting appointed transcriber that tries to bring terse statements into irc or we find some voice to text software to test out. There was a nice lag when I was asked questions over voice and then needed to answer over irc, but it did not bother me. Overall I really enjoyed it even with not being able to talk back via voice and request we move forward in building what needs to be built to make this a viable meeting solution. Jonathan Steffan daMaestro ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: The asterisk paradox
Jonathan Steffan wrote: On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 11:30 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: There was some discussion at the last meeting about how to use asterisk in the future for meetings or even if we should. This has brought up an interesting problem: Early adoption of asterisk is slow because not everyone has the equipment to use it. People don't feel compelled to get the equipment because adoption is slow. So what do we do about it? I feel very strongly asterisk as a medium is much more efficient to use then IRC and helps bring the team together to work as a more cohesive unit. I also believe it will do the same for other groups. But we cannot do the meetings in asterisk at this time because it raises the barrier to entry by too much and provides no meeting logs. So I'd like to propose the following possible solutions. 1) Meet 15 minutes before or after the meeting for a supplemental-meeting in asterisk to shake out some things. Then continue with the meeting in IRC as normal. 2) Meetings in IRC are generally very slow, it might be worth it to do the meetings as normal but also have people log in to asterisk to bs and generally just chat, get to know each other a bit better. 3) Do as we did last week, have people who can't talk join the conference anyway and ask questions in the chat room while having someone transcribe and provide minutes. +1 Jonathan, IIRC you were one of the team members that didn't have a microphone. How did that work for you? -Mike ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: The asterisk paradox
On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 11:30 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > There was some discussion at the last meeting about how to use asterisk > in the future for meetings or even if we should. This has brought up an > interesting problem: > > Early adoption of asterisk is slow because not everyone has the > equipment to use it. People don't feel compelled to get the equipment > because adoption is slow. > > So what do we do about it? I feel very strongly asterisk as a medium is > much more efficient to use then IRC and helps bring the team together to > work as a more cohesive unit. I also believe it will do the same for > other groups. But we cannot do the meetings in asterisk at this time > because it raises the barrier to entry by too much and provides no > meeting logs. So I'd like to propose the following possible solutions. > > 1) Meet 15 minutes before or after the meeting for a > supplemental-meeting in asterisk to shake out some things. Then > continue with the meeting in IRC as normal. > 2) Meetings in IRC are generally very slow, it might be worth it to do > the meetings as normal but also have people log in to asterisk to bs and > generally just chat, get to know each other a bit better. > 3) Do as we did last week, have people who can't talk join the > conference anyway and ask questions in the chat room while having > someone transcribe and provide minutes. +1 > 4) ? you come up with some. > > In general I think 2) is most practical for now. I'd prefer 3) since I > think everyone can have headphones and listen in to the main meeting and > ask questions in IRC but having someone volunteer to transcribe / > summarize the meeting is a huge commitment. > > This is a big change for us, having said that I think anyone who has > used the technology will agree that it works very well. It will work > even better as people start to use it more and get used to their > equipment and more people feel the need to get a proper mic/head set. > Fedora is very much about new technologies and early adoption. I'd love > for us to be the first OSS community to use asterisk like this, and of > course if Fedora is going to use it, the Infrastructure team should lead > the way. Having said that, any changes like this are raising the > barrier to entry and that is just a dangerous thing to do. As long as > we still have IRC I think we'll be fine but this is something we must > choose as a group. > > Thoughts? Should we look at testing speech to text? Jonathan ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: The asterisk paradox
On 8/10/07, Mike McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2) Meetings in IRC are generally very slow, it might be worth it to do > the meetings as normal but also have people log in to asterisk to bs and > generally just chat, get to know each other a bit better. +1 for now > 3) Do as we did last week, have people who can't talk join the > conference anyway and ask questions in the chat room while having > someone transcribe and provide minutes. +1 in the future -Yaakov ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: The asterisk paradox
On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 11:30 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > 2) Meetings in IRC are generally very slow, it might be worth it to do > the meetings as normal but also have people log in to asterisk to bs and > generally just chat, get to know each other a bit better. Sounds good to me. But we do need to follow "Quaid's Rule" and be sure to keep business in IRC. > 3) Do as we did last week, have people who can't talk join the > conference anyway and ask questions in the chat room while having > someone transcribe and provide minutes. I think we need better transcription. It's hard to summarize important points in realtime. It's also nice to know who's saying things. It's also hard to have two streams of communication -- if several people are in IRC asking questions, they're at a disadvantage in knowing what's going on and being able to raise an issue with a specific point to people who are discussing things on the phone. In my case specifically, I comprehend ideas and plans better when they're written than when they're spoken but I learn more about the people doing the communication when it's auditory. (I drive my wife crazy because I never remember the lyrics of songs, only the tune and emotional content.) -Toshio signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Re: The asterisk paradox
On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 10:48:01AM -0600, Jonathan Steffan wrote: > Should we look at testing speech to text? I mentioned using sphinx[0] yesterday on #fedora-admin, kind of as a joke -- but it may be worth a shot ? Once we are able to save conferences, then it should be pretty easy to test this stuff out. luke [0]: http://cmusphinx.sourceforge.net ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
RE: The asterisk paradox
> In general I think 2) is most practical for now. I'd prefer > 3) since I think everyone can have headphones and listen in > to the main meeting and ask questions in IRC but having > someone volunteer to transcribe / summarize the meeting is a > huge commitment. I don't think meeting minutes would be an issue. I'm used to them for work meetings, others likely used to similar. Not a word for word dictation, just a summary of discussion points, decisions, action items. We don't need to go all Robert's Rules on this, but good meeting minutes are golden. Just have someone makes the notes summarizing the discussion into the irc channel. Those that had to step away from the meeting could catch up, but more importantly, it gives us a written record of a voice-based meeting. The other barrier to voice meetings that I don't think was mentioned was that it requires good spoken english, rather than just written english (and the ability to understand it). Having summaries written as the meeting progresses might help that. Lunch is far too short, Cheers - Michael ___ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
