I have also had a number of bad voice/video meetings and some decent
IRC meetings. I'd really like to experiment with the combination of
all of the above. I think that a voice conference together with IRC
could be a really useful combination. For example, its hard to know
when someone wants to speak next in a voice conference, in a physical
meeting , that kind of queuing is really well handled with eye
contact, and small hand gestures, which can happen while someone is
talking. I think that kind of thing could happen in IRC, like people
type in "I'd like to respond", so for big chunks of talking, that
would be handled over voice, then the little bits like figuring out
who will speak next could be handled in IRC.
For the book sprint, I think it would probably work differently. Like
a constant, async, low volume chatter on IRC, then when some people
want to work out an approach to a chapter or topic, they would switch
to voice chat and have a discussion.
.hc
On Mar 18, 2009, at 3:45 AM, dmotd wrote:
i should probably avoid writing emails before bed, and my negative
bias
towards video-conferencing comes from a number of bad experiences and
unproductive meetings. anyhow you are quite right to push this one, to
converse without latency can be very productive (but equally
unproductive
too) - a good meeting requires a fair bit more preparation and
planning than
just the medium, regardless of mcluhans philosophy. incidentally i
have
enjoyed his musings in the past but i already find his arguments
ambiguous
enough with regard to psychology and technology, to retrofit his
ideologies
to todays baffling techno-communcications wasteland is a bit of a
stretch ;)
ciao,
dmotd
On Tuesday 17 March 2009 21:41:46 Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Yeah, in case I came across too strong, I think that IRC is very
useful, and voice chat is too. We can have both running for this
meeting, and people can choose where they participate. IRC is great
for async communications, like asking specific questions. But I find
it takes 10-20x longer to work through difficult issues thru text-
only
media like IRC, IM, email, etc. as compared to a voice conversation.
.hc
On Mar 16, 2009, at 7:32 PM, João Pais wrote:
Is this a one time thing, or might happen more times? I would say
that at least voice connection would be productive. I haven't that
much experience with video conferencing, but a medium where people
can react at the same time they can think would be important.
(although after too much time, even the fingers are faster than some
heads)
How about voice connection for general talk + an irc chat for small,
fast questions? We can also send a group foto with skype, so that
everyone feels the warmth.
Marshall McLuhan would strongly disagree with you, as do I. The
medium with which you communicate has a very strong impact on the
conversation. That does not mean that it is the only influence.
There are many things that lead to a bad meeting, and from my
experience of having many meetings in person, on IRC, on IM, on
phones, on voice chat, on video chat, and many different mixes
above, I am a strong believer in high-bandwidth communication like
voice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Mistrust authority - promote decentralization. - the hacker ethic
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
News is what people want to keep hidden and everything else is
publicity. - Bill Moyers
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
