On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Dave CROCKER <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
On 10/24/2011 4:09 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
It's really not that big a deal. Make sure that audio is working,
that there's a Jabber scribe/Jabber room watcher
Basic question: what has been the claimed purpose for doing jabber scribing?
I have a concrete suggestion for WG chairs: don't ask for a "Jabber
scribe" (which makes it sound as if the hapless volunteer needs to type
everything that's said into the chatroom) but instead ask for someone to
relay comments from the chatroom to the mic.
I thought it was a means of produce raw minutes. A side -- and sometimes extremely valuable -- benefit is as a relatively real-time alternative source of information about what is being spoken; this can be quite helpful for participants who are not native English speakers.
That is how I use it. In that interpretation, there only needs to be one scribe, with is an advantage.
Another BIG advantage of this is that if I write (as a jabber scribe) something like
Audience member ? : this proposal conflicts with RFC <mumble>
I am likely to get a rapid response providing what <mumble> means and who the speaker is. After the fact, this sort of thing is much harder to reconstruct.
A disadvantage is that it typically overwhelms normal discussion on the jabber channel. I have suggested that each
session get _2_ jabber channels, one for chat, one for scribing, but so far this has not gotten any support.
Regards
Marshall
If neither of these purposes are worth the effort, then your suggestion sounds dandy. If either is sufficiently valuable, then my question is why your groups haven't needed them. (I'm expecting the answer to be that your groups didn't feel the need; so my real question is why not?)_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf