On 7/27/15 2:20 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > I do support the idea that a remote participant can get in a > queue and not be endlessly gazumped by folks who are present. > With jabber and channelling that works ok today. Well, no. Whether or not it works at all is highly dependent on having a chair that pays attention to remote participants and a diligent scribe. I've participated remotely quite a bit over the years and I have to say that this was absolutely the worst meeting I've experienced - some number of chairs seem to think that having Meetecho broadcasts obviates the need for other forms of remote participant support, including having a scribe to relay questions/comments/hums to the floor. This problem is exacerbated by chairs calling consensus in the room, without taking the issue out to the mailing list. This is not to move away from the discussion of handling mic queues, but rather to point out that whether or not what we have now works well is highly situational, and it can occasionally be quite bad. > What I do not want however is for chairs to lose the ability to > allow two or more folks to discuss a specific point when that's > the best way to get something resolved. Yes, presumably this is why we have meetings in the first place. We could probably sort people in the queue by topic but that still wouldn't provide enough specificity to do what you're describing. I think that ultimately it comes down to good chairing practices (as well as good meeting participant practices). Melinda