Michael Richardson <m...@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>...
> What I see is that if we could better formalize the jabber-to-mic
> process, such as by giving that person a *MIC*, and/or seating them
> at the front, or making it a function of one of the co-chairs, then
> it seems that a lot of the issues go away.
Well, no they don't -- but some of the particular examples _could_
be treated by this, so perhaps rewording would help.
For folks to _participate_ remotely, it should be _their_ voice
that others hear; they need to _hear_ the questions that others have
about what they say; and they need to respond to those questions with
a delay not exceeding about ten seconds.
Jabber doesn't provide those, even if we make it a front-table
co-chair responsibility. Any of many conferencing solutions do provide
for that.
And IMHO, all WGCs need to keep their attention on following the
conversations, not on jabber.
> Part of the problem is that we waste huge amounts of our in-person time
> on presentations rather than conversations.
+100 !!
However, I fear that's mostly out-of-scope for this document.
All we can cover here is how remote participation can aid us in
getting actual responses to the presentations we do have. Granted, many
times the presentations won't _deserve_ actual response time; but IMHO
the only way to limit presentation-time is to enforce a cost visible
to the WGCs.
>...
> === where was the chair here?
>...
> === again, failure of the chair here.
Granted, I haven't _been_ the WGC in these situations, but I do have
some sympathy for these "failures". They're under a lot of pressure to
get _some_ progress during the very scarce meeting time; and most of
what they hear sounds to them like "wandering in the weeds".
IMHO, the best tool on the horizon is virtual interims; and that is
where this document can help.
> A lot of focus in the document here seems to be about getting the voice
> into the room.
True... That's a problem we haven't solved; and without solving it
"remote participation" will be an overly-optimistic name for what
folks like me do.
> As a remote participant who has participated at IETF and other
> meetings, I much prefer the IETF method.
I understand that preference.
And indeed, as "remote attendance" it's more rewarding.
But, to tell truth, it's not "participation". Most folks get no
benefit of what you do; and jabber isn't _really_ a part of the
meeting. Often, I find that _nobody_ physically present is paying
any attention to the jabber room, and I don't blame them.
> (Particularly that even with the who-is-talking-now bit, unless we
> can enforce push-to-talk {how do we do that on a straight PSTN
> voice connection?} we will always have the background
> noise/people-eating/etc. problem.)
(There's the germ of a good discussion here, but Mike needs to
restate this before I can respond intelligently: I suggest it deserves
a separate named thread.)
> a) At 2am, it's much better to type at my house than to talk.
There are precious few homes where you can't find a place to sit
with your laptop and speak quietly into a headset.
> b) If I type my question, it's in the jabber log.
So what? Most folks ignore the jabber log: I don't blame them. Even
if they read it, what could they do about it?
> c) There is a good chance that someone else might answer me, and
> my question does not need to interrupt.
That is a legitimate function of jabber. It's just not "participation"
in the meeting.
> d) If the chair/presenter could read the questions directly, when it
> is a presentation rather than a discussion, then maybe we do not
> need a MIC and MIC-line, as everyone could use that!
Are you proposing that _all_ questions must be typed into jabber
(even those from local participants)?
> Back in 1996, when I started at the IETF, we had few computer
> projectors, but did have transparencies. A feature of them is that
> they are expensive, hard(er than PPT) to produce, and so there was
> much more conversation.
+1
> I come back to this, because central to vmeet requirements is what kind
> of meetings are we trying to support?
I disagree that that's the question.
We're trying to support "remote participation"; not trying to force
WGCs into any particular "kind of meeting".
--
John Leslie <j...@jlc.net>
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html.
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
