Same. There's a lot of innovation going on in the online meeting space, so it's not deeply surprising that we're seeing Jabber languishing, although it is unfortunate. Of course, Jabber as a protocol suite has a ludicrously high learning curve, which might explain this to some extent.
One frustration I have with this discussion is that there is actually a great deal of understanding of this problem in the IETF, but we don't seem to have the will to actually put that understanding into practice. Could we have a BoF on this in Prague?
On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 9:38 AM Ole Troan <otroan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Please refer to the email which was sent to the IETF mailing list on 19 July. Why did the mistake happen again?
>
> Because I forgot to find a scribe. I’m very sorry about this. (I even added an item to my task manager to remind myself to do this after the last plenary, but it failed to trigger a notification. I already have one correctly set to fire an alarm before the IETF 104 plenary.)
There were hundreds of people in the room that didn’t notice either, so I think we should take this as a collective failure.
It is unfortunately quite common that remote participants are ignored when there such a big disproportinate number of local versus remote.
Apart from running a fully remote meeting, I don’t know what can fix that. Because those of us who are local, want to take advantage of the benefits of higher bandwidth communication. Body language, beer, hand waving....
Btw: I have experienced that finding working jabber clients for my OS is becoming harder and harder. Is this an indication of jabber in general failing? And if so what are we going to do about it?
Cheers,
Ole
