That said, and given the difficulties of balancing competing
priorities in site location, it seems reasonable to me to make
a decent, good-faith effort without getting overly bogged down
in "where should we meet?" discussions, and really try to get
the remote participation thing nailed down a little better. The
ratio of good to bad remote meeting input has improved a lot
over the past year or so but there are still too many working
groups without a Jabber scribe in the room (which prevents remote
listeners from providing inputs), etc.
OK, this is only a thought, and I'm out of the process improvement business
anyway, but I've been seeing a consistent improvement in the quality of
jabber logs for at least two years, and I'm wondering if there are working
groups who would be willing to try "minutes = chair summary plus jabber
logs" for a few IETFs (without what we usually think of as "detailed
minutes"), and see if this is actually workable.
I'm a many-time repeat offender as WG note-taker, and am watching my notes
look more and more like a jabber log with only one jabberer; the advantages
of jabber (in my experience) are
- it's nice for the note-taker to be able to participate in the meeting - as
an extreme case, in the SIPPING Ad Hoc on Friday, Gonzalo and Mary handed me
the mike about twenty times, but very litte of what I said appeared in the
notes, and it's worse when someone is already talking when I stop talking.
That's typical in my experience. With Jabber, people can type until I get
back to my seat.
- It's really nice when I misquote, or mis-attribute, something that was
said and another jabberer corrects it right away. This is SO much better
than the WG chair having to listen to the audio stream to check my notes
after some number of days has elapsed (and sometimes all the chair can tell
from the audio is that I got it wrong, without knowing what "right" would
have been).
- and, obviously, this works better for remote participants (what's the
alternative - send e-mail to the list?)
Now that all this stuff is on the IETF website, it should be more enduring
than if the jabber rooms and logs were hosted somewhere else.
Of course, Jabber has to work; our wireless network has been pretty solid
the last couple of meetings, but even so, if you offer a Jabber scribe an
Ethernet connection and guaranteed power at the front of the room, that
would be pretty compelling for me, most IETFs.
Thanks,
Spencer
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf