>>>>> "John" == John Leslie <[email protected]> writes:
>> Part of the problem is that we waste huge amounts of our in-person time
>> on presentations rather than conversations.
John> +100 !!
John> However, I fear that's mostly out-of-scope for this document.
Well, then we need a requirements requirement process!
If we are optimizing our meetings for one-way powerpoint presentations
with questions held to the end, answered only by the presenter, then
that argues for one technical solution.
If we are optimizing our meetings for multi-party conversations, then
maybe it's going to be a different technical solution.
Also, the two things do not scale the same way. My sense is that we
want to use the RPS as much for interim virtual meetings (and "design
team" meetings) as for meetings, so in fact, the multi-party
conversation solution is actually the more interesting one.
... as you said:
John> IMHO, the best tool on the horizon is virtual interims; and that is
John> where this document can help.
John> But, to tell truth, it's not "participation". Most folks get no
John> benefit of what you do; and jabber isn't _really_ a part of the
John> meeting. Often, I find that _nobody_ physically present is paying
John> any attention to the jabber room, and I don't blame them.
I'm really lost about that. *I* sure do when I'm present.
>> (Particularly that even with the who-is-talking-now bit, unless we
>> can enforce push-to-talk {how do we do that on a straight PSTN
>> voice connection?} we will always have the background
>> noise/people-eating/etc. problem.)
John> (There's the germ of a good discussion here, but Mike needs to
John> restate this before I can respond intelligently: I suggest it
John> deserves
John> a separate named thread.)
okay.
>> d) If the chair/presenter could read the questions directly, when it
>> is a presentation rather than a discussion, then maybe we do not
>> need a MIC and MIC-line, as everyone could use that!
John> Are you proposing that _all_ questions must be typed into jabber
John> (even those from local participants)?
It's an interesting idea, don't you think?
>> Back in 1996, when I started at the IETF, we had few computer
>> projectors, but did have transparencies. A feature of them is that
>> they are expensive, hard(er than PPT) to produce, and so there was
>> much more conversation.
John> +1
>> I come back to this, because central to vmeet requirements is what kind
>> of meetings are we trying to support?
John> I disagree that that's the question.
John> We're trying to support "remote participation"; not trying to force
John> WGCs into any particular "kind of meeting".
--
] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
then sign the petition.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html.
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
