On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 02:29:23PM +0000, Dave Cridland allegedly wrote: > I don't actually have the choice, but I find remote participation > generally okay, for the most part, albeit I have the slight advantage > of starting off my internet experience in telnet BBS systems, so I'm > generally used to the text chat thing, the lag, etc. The audio lag is > more unnerving, in the cases where the Jabber scribe is helpfully > typing in what people are going to say before they say it. > > Many thanks to all the jabber scribes in those meetings I virtually > attended, and, just as important, thanks to those physically present > who also monitored and used the Jabber rooms, and thus made me feel > somewhat like an attendee (albeit in the cheap seats) rather than a > "not present". > > I'm somewhat hoping that the use of the Jabber server outside the > meetings might be able to take off as a method for more > high-bandwidth discussion, paradoxically leaving more time in the > "real" meetings for the kind of presentations that Keith hates, but > this time having them aimed at cross pollination between groups and > areas. I love what you can do in text-based systems and support the idea of having ongoing issue-specific discussions available. In text-based environments, input takes a little time, but everyone can speak at once so progress can be rapid (if facilitated well when needed). However, jabber is relatively primitive. I don't need video or audio but I would like to be able to collaborate on a figure with you, highlight text I'm "talking" about, that sort of thing. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf