To each his own I suppose. You wouldn't like notes-in-jabber either for the same reasons.
I always copy the agenda into the Etherpad at the beginning. That's my outline. As I always have the tools agenda open on my laptop, it's one click, select all, copy/paste. Convenient enough for me, but I wouldn't object if it was automatic. Brian On May 22, 2012, at 12:21 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > The question of tools and techniques for taking/organizing minutes should > perhaps be considered separately. > > I made one experimental try at Etherpad that didn't go well. And we had a > notes taker in CLUE try it, which also went badly. I don't consider that > definitive - maybe we just needed a better version/deployment and/or better > advanced practice. > > But Etherpad doesn't currently fit well with my working techniques for notes > taking. I always found it hard to keep up when taking notes - I would want to > capture who was presenting (if I didn't already know) and the doc they were > discussing, but often couldn't get it off the first slide before they moved > on. So for a few years now I have been preparing a notes template before hand > for each meeting, with extracts from the agenda for each session I intend to > attend. That way I only need to add to that with points made or blow by blow. > > If that was viewed as a generally useful technique then etherpad could be > pre-primed in every session. But if not it would be inconvenient to do on the > fly. > > The other thing is that when taking notes I often write some observations > that are for me, but that I wouldn't want to share with the world. If I'm > official scribe then I extract my notes for the session and "sanitize" them > before sending on. If I were using etherpad I would be inhibited from > capturing those private observations for myself. > > Thanks, > Paul > > On 5/22/12 11:04 AM, Brian Rosen wrote: >> I've recently been converted to using Etherpad for minutes (I usually >> volunteer to be note taker for 2-3 sessions at a meeting). It's a very nice >> tool for the job. >> >> Any jabber user can login to the Etherpad to see the minutes taking shape as >> I type them. That way, they have them if they want them, and don't if they >> don't. >> >> I personally think the minutes are not a good feed for jabber in the >> abstract. The goals of a jabber scribe are not the same as the goals of the >> minute taker. My ability to take minutes would be seriously compromised by >> doing it in jabber because of editing. I edit as I go, and I'm done when >> the meeting is over. >> >> >> Brian >> >> On May 22, 2012, at 10:47 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: >> >>> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 8:59 AM, John Leslie<j...@jlc.net> wrote: >>>> (directed to<vmeet> only:) >>>> >>>> Peter Saint-Andre<stpe...@stpeter.im> wrote: >>>>> On 3/29/12 2:50 AM, George, Wes wrote: >>>>>> ... On Behalf Of Melinda Shore >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've put up a first crack at a how-to-do-remote-good page, here: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/wgchairs/wiki/RemoteParticipation. >>>>>> >>>>>> I made a few changes in the wiki page... >>>>> >>>>> This is a very helpful page. I made a few tweaks, but not much was needed. >>>> >>>> It's a very helpful page for remote-attendance. :^) >>>> >>>> It's, alas, not up to the task for remote _participation_. :^( >>>> >>>> "Typically 5-15 seconds" isn't good enough. (I'm not arguing whether >>>> _one_ second is even "good enough".) >>>> >>>> The delay needs to be known. Adjusting to a five-second delay is one >>>> thing; adjusting to a 30-second delay (which is too-often seen) is quite >>>> another. Adjusting to an unknown delay is no longer "participation". >>>> When asking whether the remote audio is OK, _measure_ the delay. >>>> >>>> The part about one person being both jabber-scribe and minute-taker >>>> needs to be "Don't do this!" >>> >>> First, please note that some WG are "jabber-active" and others are >>> not. In other words, some consistently have many participants on >>> jabber, and others consistently do not. >>> >>> I really like to take minutes on jabber, as (at least for the >>> jabber-active WG). Two pro's : >>> >>> - the jabber logs are saved, so even if my laptop dies, the log does not. >>> - In a jabber active WG, the inevitable ellipses will be filled in by >>> other participants. >>> >>> Two con's : >>> >>> - If the local WAN goes down, so does the jabber log. (And, this does >>> happen.) >>> - It can drown out the other jabber chat by other participants. >>> >>> I have suggested a number of times that there be 2 jabber chats for >>> each WG meeting, one for discussions, one for >>> minute taking, but without any traction so far. >>> >>> Regards >>> Marshall >>> >>>> >>>> If remote participation is important, minutes need to happen separately. >>>> To some degree, minutes can be pieced together after the fact, provided >>>> there is a separate backup audio recording. >>>> >>>> The Jabber Scribe needs full-time access to a microphone. Arguably the >>>> Jabber Scribe should be sitting next to the meeting Chair. >>>> >>>> Mentioning the issue of adjusting for the audio delay when recognizing >>>> remote participation is good -- but there needs to be a practical way of >>>> accomplishing this. Sitting next to the meeting Chair and mentioning >>>> who wants to be channeled seems plausible... >>>> >>>> Projecting the jabber stream probably isn't a great idea for the general >>>> case (there will certainly be exceptional cases). Advising the in-room >>>> participants to use the jabber room is always good, though. >>>> >>>> The part about clarifying the name of each speaker at the microphones >>>> is a start, but again there needs to be a practical way... >>>> >>>> In practice, what I find works best is "Who's talking" questions in >>>> jabber, followed by "Please state your name for the minutes" if nobody >>>> answers in jabber. (Of course, this coming 30 seconds _after_ the person >>>> mumbled his/her name _is_ disruptive, but IMHO it's important enough to >>>> justify the disruption.) >>>> >>>> It's asking _a_lot_ of the Jabber Scribe to note the name of every >>>> person who speaks, but possibly the Jabber Scribe could guess and add >>>> a question-mark when s/he's at all uncertain. (If the Jabber Scribe >>>> already has no idea whatsoever, asking on-mike is called-for IMHO.) >>>> >>>> I suggest that the jabber stream SHOULD contain the name of every >>>> participant speaking at the microphone (or channeled). In practice, >>>> the Jabber Scribe can't simultaneously type and speak; so someone else >>>> would probably need to add the "channeling NN" note. >>>> >>>> <asbestos-suit = ON> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
