On 08-Aug-19 21:36, Meetecho IETF support wrote: > Il 07/08/19 02:00, Brian E Carpenter ha scritto: >> On 07-Aug-19 11:37, 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? >>> 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). >>> >>> If there are no remote participants, can WG go on without Jabber scriber? >> >> Jabber is integrated with Meetecho, so I don't think we can drop it unless... >> >>> Remote people can also access Etherpad. It is kind of nice to have questions captured in the Etherpad. >> >> ....Etherpad could also in some way be integrated with Meetecho. But I don't see how that would work, whereas instant messaging fits in quite naturally. > > Etherpad is already integrated with Meetecho: > http://ietf105.conf.meetecho.com/index.php/Remote_Participation#GUI Ah, good. fwiw, my opinion is that a separate instant messaging channel is better for remote participants; anything useful in the jabber log can be inserted into the minutes later. It's not as if raw Etherpad generally satisfies the RFC2418 requirement that "minutes should include the agenda for the session, an account of the discussion including any decisions made..." without some manual editing. Brian > >> >> (BTW, I've found Jabber very reliable using Gajim on Windows, with an account @jabber.org. But apart from IETF weeks, very few people seem to use it now.) >> >> Brian >> > . >
