During regular working group meetings, the queues get cut off very quickly, sometimes before the remote person's question catches the attention of the of the jabber scribe and the the jabber scribe is willing to go up to the queue. (The jabber scribe definitely has his/her hands full. :))
Also, when in person and at the mic, if one get's a blank look from the presenter, one can rephrase the question. Additionally, one can quickly reply and/or ask for clarification immediately following the response while at the mic. All this becomes a lot harder with a scribe. Can be done, but the speed of regular WG meetings is often not supportive of it. Now if I had a roomful of people eagerly waiting to hear and digest my expert opinion... Anoop On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Melinda Shore <[email protected]> wrote: > On 8/23/12 3:14 PM, Anoop Ghanwani wrote: >> >> I have attended a WG meeting remotely and found that while >> it's mostly possible to follow what is happening, it is almost >> impossible to participate meaningfully. Jabber is too slow >> because often questions/answers require quick turn around >> and at least regular WG meetings move too quickly for that. > > > I've participated in working group sessions remotely dozens of > times and I don't quite understand this comment. It's not as > if you can just pipe up when the spirit moves you when you're in > the room, either - you have to stand in line and wait your turn. > There's not much multi-party discussion, either. Ultimately > how successful remote participation is comes down to the attentiveness > of the chairs, I think. > > Melinda > > > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
