Keith Moore wrote:
sometimes I find remote participation (via audio streaming and jabber)
more effective than actually attending the meeting. I sometimes am
surprised to find that the extra distance makes it easier for me to see
what is relevant. I also think it might be less distracting to a
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 07:49:46AM -0800, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> Maybe there's an intermediate between email and full f2f time?
> Something like having well known jabber chats to simulate the
> quickness of f2f conversation without having to be there? There
> is some amount of precedence for th
> From: Tim Chown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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
> mee
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 08:49:28AM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
>
> You mean like holding a bi-weekly teleconference?
>
> VOIP is getting to the point where this is practical.
Well yes, telecons are fine for design team work, but for an open interim
meeting you need to determine which sy
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
>> From: Tim Chown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> 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 a
On 03/24/06 at 5:00pm -, Stig Venaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
> discus
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 12:10:47PM -0500, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> On 03/24/06 at 5:00pm -, Stig Venaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > discus
> From: Tim Chown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 08:49:28AM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> >
> > You mean like holding a bi-weekly teleconference?
> >
> > VOIP is getting to the point where this is practical.
>
> Well yes, telecons are fine for design team work,
Maybe we should leave the Jabber meeting rooms up all the time, and use them
for more dynamic discussions.
John
- original message -
Subject:Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings)
From: Stig Venaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 03/24/2006 5:01 pm
Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Stig Venaas wrote:
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
From: Tim Chown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 m
Marshall
- original message -
Subject:Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings)
From: Stig Venaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 03/24/2006 5:01 pm
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
From: Tim Chown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, if we make remote participation too good, we may
s
> Marshall
>
>
>
>> - original message -
>> Subject:Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings)
>> From:Stig Venaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date:03/24/2006 5:01 pm
>>
>> Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
>>>> From: Tim Cho
ndividual 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
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date:03/24/200
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Just a general comment: I think that as far as decision-taking
is concerned, we need to treat WG jabber sessions (and
teleconferences) exctly like face to face meetings - any
"decisions" taken must in fact be referred to the WG mailing
list for rough consensus. Otherwise,
15 matches
Mail list logo
