On the other hand, it's much faster and convenient to scan (and
search) a text transcript compared to viewing a video feed. It
also takes up less space to store. It's extremely amusing to
think of a scribe as a compression algorithm, but that's
basically what's going on. Unfortunately, as
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 10:33:58PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
i have used jabber in ietf meetings and similarcontexts. it works
to coordinate stuff in real-time. but that was not my application
this time. i really was after the as much content of the meeting
as possible. to do that well in
It has potential, but not much more potential than if someone emailed a
transcript at the end of the meeting.
If you are interested in the meeting, but can't be there because you are
not on-site, video is still far better. No transcript can possibly show
the chair's facial expression as a
* working group can often take better minutes than an outsider. On the
* other hand, it is very hard to take good minutes and/or scribe while
* participating in the discussion, and often the minutes will suffer for
* those portions of the meeting where the minute-taker also wants to
*
On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 18:56:12 GMT, Lloyd Wood said:
You fail to grasp the fundamentally non-participatory role of the
non-participant.
And the non-participants are there why, exactly? (Note that I'm basically
clueless on this one - there's been a few IETFs that have actually been
plausible for
, and the hardest to farm out...
Spencer
-Original Message-
From: Theodore Ts'o [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 8:47 AM
To: Randy Bush
Cc: Marshall Rose; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: movies vs chat logs
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 10:33:58PM -0800, Randy
I have a hard time believing that chat-logs can ever come
close to a reasonable report of what happened. That is in
the IETF context. Take a look at all the WG sessions minutes
and try to see for yourself if they are understandable for
anyone who was not present? And those get posted and
reviewed
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 11:33 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: movies vs chat logs
* working group can often take better minutes than an
outsider. On the
* other hand, it is very
--On Friday, 14 February, 2003 15:20 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder if the number of tourists would go down if it
became tradition that if you were sitting there and not
actively participating, you could summarily be drafted to take
notes.
Been tried. On average,
I was wondering if a speech to text software like dragonspeaking could be the scribe and output to jabber?
Also audio streaming is quite good (low bandwidth) and you can listen to it like the radio...
Cheers
In a couple of WGs, the person taking notes did so live on the jabber
channel. A number of times there were corrections made in real time to
the notes by the other participants. There were also a few cases where
the note taker would put out a question about something that had just
happened or
At 10:22 AM +1200 2/15/03, Franck Martin wrote:
I was wondering if a speech to text software like dragonspeaking could be the scribe
and output to jabber?
Dream on...
+--+
| You need only two tools: WD-40 and duct
I found the jabber logs helped me decide when to move between sessions, when
micro-timing of schedules wasn't apparent and I had to be in 'both' sessions.
I found sidebar conversations carried the subjective information you missed. I
don't think we can yet intuit the consensus of the room to put
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Randy Bush writes:
due to lightening struck tower, i was unable to be at the atlanta
meeting. i really needed to know what happened in a number of
sessions in which i have critical interest.
the jabber logs were useless, at best s/he is talking about X now
with no
the jabber logs were useless, at best s/he is talking about X now
with no idea of what was said, how it was justified, what the
reactions were, ... note that i am a jabber user, run a jabber
server, ... so it is not anti-jabber prejudice. it just seemed
not to work in this particular
were some logs more useful to you than others?
yes. but the difference between 5% useful and twice as good is not
very interesting.
i have used jabber in ietf meetings and similarcontexts. it works
to coordinate stuff in real-time. but that was not my application
this time. i really was
-Original Message-
From: George Michaelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, 14 February 2003 3:03
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: movies vs chat logs
I found the jabber logs helped me decide when to move between
sessions, when
micro-timing of schedules wasn't apparent and I
17 matches
Mail list logo
