On 8/6/19 7:37 PM, Linda Dunbar wrote:
Pete, Thanks for the pointer. There are so many very easy messaging Apps, Slack, Wire, etc. why it is mandatary to have Jabber?
Why should people have to a proprietary app, or have an account with a proprietary service (with all of the attendant risks associated with either) to be able to participate remotely?
I understand that Jabber use has declined. Some other non-proprietary chat facility might be fine. But as a standards-making organization, IMO we should not be promoting use of technologies that aren't open standards or at least open source.
Besides, remote people who want to post questions should register with the Remote Participation, and can raise their hands if they want to ask questions (i.e. posting their questions to the Etherpad).
Having tried to use both when participating remotely at the recent IETF, I can attest that Jabber works better for this.
If there are no remote participants, can WG go on without Jabber scriber?
Remote participants can join at any time, so I would say the Jabber scribe is still needed. But it may be that people think that by serving as Jabber scribe, they need to take notes. If all they are expected to do is relay questions, chairs could make that clear, and it might be easier to recruit them. And the Jabber scribe can use Meetecho to post to the chat room, so they don't need to install software other than a browser.
Remote people can also access Etherpad. It is kind of nice to have questions captured in the Etherpad.
I find it confusing to have questions in the Etherpad because of the way it works. An append-only medium is better for questions.
Keith
