On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Melinda Shore <melinda.sh...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On 8/6/13 11:58 AM, Joe Abley wrote: > > For what it's worth (not much) I would miss the line at the mic. > > There are useful conversations that happen within the line that I > > think we would lose if the mic followed the speaker, and I also think > > that pipelining the people at the mic promotes more fluid > > conversation. But these are minor points, and I'm mainly just waxing > > nostalgic. > > I actually think that this is not a small point. The people in > line are the people with issues and the ability to hash stuff out > quickly is pretty nice They can also negotiate and reorganize each other. For example, if I am at the mic wanting to raise a new topic and there is someone with an issue on the current one they will usually ask if they can cut in. Another frequent case is when someone raises an issue and someone actually knows the answer. That sort of thing can be pretty important when a statement of fact is made that is wrong, particularly when it is the alleged opinion of someone else. In Orlando someone asserted X had stated Y would happen which being in the security area and knowing that Y was idiotic and X was most unlikely to have said it, I pointed out that the speaker had likely misunderstood. When I later met up with X they were surprised anyone would think they thought Y because that would be idiotic. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
