--On Friday, March 30, 2012 16:18 -0700 SM <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Hi John,
> At 15:14 30-03-2012, John C Klensin wrote:
>> Just so we understand what we are talking about, that means
>> all eight tracks, plus the plenaries? My recollection of how
>> much
>
> Yes.
>
>> skilled transcribers can do at a time combined with the length
>> of our day, is that would mean at least 10 and probably 12-15,
>> transcription people. Is that roughly what the figure you
>> give is based on? And does it include airfare and hotels for
>> those people (noting that they would, e.g., outnumber
>> Secretariat staff for the duration of a meeting.
>
> No, I meant doing the transcription remotely to avoid the
> expenses of airfare and hotels. Skilled transcribers are more
> expensive. BTW, I looked up the figures over a year ago.
Interesting idea. Of course, if the audio fails, we would
essentially have what used to be called a domino effect: if
minutes and everything else depended on the transcribers, the
transcribers were remote, and the audio went out, the WG might
reasonably adjourn to the nearest location dispensing coffee or
stronger beverages.
>> It does if people who are in the room want to see the
>> transcript. Experience at multiple IETF plenaries and several
>> other organizations (including ICANN) indicates that they
>> usually do. The other advantage of transcripts is that they
>> can be used by folks who don't hear well. If they are in the
>> room, that certainly requires an extra screen, at least
>> unless you expect that population to all bring laptops and
>> spend their time hunched over them.
>
> The screen may not be as visible from the back of the room.
> If people in the room want to see the transcript, they bring
> their laptop. If you can follow the conversation, you don't
> need the transcript. The service could be optional; it's up
> to the session chair to make the call.
I worry a little about expecting people to read transcripts on
their laptops for three reasons:
(i) Trying to keep track of the laptop screen largely
prevents looking at the slides which, we would like to
hope, actually contain information. It might interfere
with Jabber tracking even more.
(ii) It might discourage getting up and standing in
microphone lines, etc., to comment and participate.
(iii) For a WG Chair (or equivalent) looking into the
audience and seeing who is huddled over their laptops,
presumably reading mail and who is paying attention.
Having a significant number of people huddled over their
laptops reading transcripts fouls up that particular bit
of inference because that group is mentally present in
the WG, while most of the mail-readers are not.
>...
> After reading
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg08692.ht
> ml my opinion is that having a transcription might help in
> such cases.
I can't dispute your opinion.
regards,
john
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html.
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
