Dear John; On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:55 PM, John C Klensin <john-i...@jck.com> wrote: > > > --On Friday, March 30, 2012 16:18 -0700 SM <s...@resistor.net> > wrote: > >> Hi John, >> At 15:14 30-03-2012, John C Klensin wrote: >>> Just so we understand what we are talking about, that means >>> all eight tracks, plus the plenaries? My recollection of how >>> much >> >> Yes. >> >>> skilled transcribers can do at a time combined with the length >>> of our day, is that would mean at least 10 and probably 12-15, >>> transcription people. Is that roughly what the figure you >>> give is based on? And does it include airfare and hotels for >>> those people (noting that they would, e.g., outnumber >>> Secretariat staff for the duration of a meeting. >> >> No, I meant doing the transcription remotely to avoid the >> expenses of airfare and hotels. Skilled transcribers are more >> expensive. BTW, I looked up the figures over a year ago. > > Interesting idea. Of course, if the audio fails, we would > essentially have what used to be called a domino effect: if > minutes and everything else depended on the transcribers, the > transcribers were remote, and the audio went out, the WG might > reasonably adjourn to the nearest location dispensing coffee or > stronger beverages. >
I think that we may be moving towards a regime where that would be true in any case. At some point, as the number of remote participants grows (including participants who rely on virtual attendance), the ability to have an open standards organization meeting will depend on the technology working. Suppose, for example, you had a WG meeting where most of the proponents of technology X were local, and physically present, and the proponents of technology Y were foreign, and virtually present. If the remote participation technology fails, can the WG Chair legitimately claim "in-room" consensus to select technology X? (Of course, such in-room consensus would have to be confirmed on the WG mailing list, but meeting consensus can have a big influence on mailing list consensus.) The result of what we are doing here will I think inevitably at some point change the answer to no. And, after that, you are not having a WG meeting, just some sort of seminar. Regards Marshall >>> It does if people who are in the room want to see the >>> transcript. Experience at multiple IETF plenaries and several >>> other organizations (including ICANN) indicates that they >>> usually do. The other advantage of transcripts is that they >>> can be used by folks who don't hear well. If they are in the >>> room, that certainly requires an extra screen, at least >>> unless you expect that population to all bring laptops and >>> spend their time hunched over them. >> >> The screen may not be as visible from the back of the room. >> If people in the room want to see the transcript, they bring >> their laptop. If you can follow the conversation, you don't >> need the transcript. The service could be optional; it's up >> to the session chair to make the call. > > I worry a little about expecting people to read transcripts on > their laptops for three reasons: > > (i) Trying to keep track of the laptop screen largely > prevents looking at the slides which, we would like to > hope, actually contain information. It might interfere > with Jabber tracking even more. > > (ii) It might discourage getting up and standing in > microphone lines, etc., to comment and participate. > > (iii) For a WG Chair (or equivalent) looking into the > audience and seeing who is huddled over their laptops, > presumably reading mail and who is paying attention. > Having a significant number of people huddled over their > laptops reading transcripts fouls up that particular bit > of inference because that group is mentally present in > the WG, while most of the mail-readers are not. > >>... >> After reading >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg08692.ht >> ml my opinion is that having a transcription might help in >> such cases. > > I can't dispute your opinion. > > regards, > john > > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html. > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html. https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
