As someone who has both done a lot of jabber scribing and is also a WG
chair and has also remotely participated, I agree with Dave Harrington
on each of his points. Putting these two threads back together,
however, let me suggest the following:
* No minute taker is perfect. This includes the jabber scribe
(especially this one).
* It is useful for the chairs to be able to "grep" the official
jabber takers' capture of what went on in the room, both when
developing minutes, and when controversies arise as they sometimes
do. They tend to be far more succinct than a full audio replay.
* Properly jabbered minutes can suffice as the basis from which a
summary can be made. However,
* All of this depends on a fully functional network, something that
we cannot yet take for granted. Although it generally performed
well, there were a few hiccups. While we can aspire for more
reliability, I don't think we should predicate our minutes on it.
* While the audio was generally VERY good this last conference (I
relied on it for the few meetings I took part in), there were a
few bad patches. I view jabbering and audio as quite complimentary.
* The side conversations in the jabber log to me are often as
relevant as what's being said by individuals. In the case of WAE,
there were several very lively discussions, including one that
contained facts that caught an AD by surprise.
* Regarding input to the microphone, a better solution than having
the jabber scribe voice a remote participant's comment would be to
find a way for the remote participant to actually voice it. I
wonder if this isn't an area we could ask the IAD and interested
volunteers to explore, and perhaps experiment with.
Eliot
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf