I've recently been converted to using Etherpad for minutes (I usually volunteer to be note taker for 2-3 sessions at a meeting). It's a very nice tool for the job.
Any jabber user can login to the Etherpad to see the minutes taking shape as I type them. That way, they have them if they want them, and don't if they don't. I personally think the minutes are not a good feed for jabber in the abstract. The goals of a jabber scribe are not the same as the goals of the minute taker. My ability to take minutes would be seriously compromised by doing it in jabber because of editing. I edit as I go, and I'm done when the meeting is over. Brian On May 22, 2012, at 10:47 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 8:59 AM, John Leslie <[email protected]> wrote: >> (directed to <vmeet> only:) >> >> Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 3/29/12 2:50 AM, George, Wes wrote: >>>> ... On Behalf Of Melinda Shore >>>>> >>>>> I've put up a first crack at a how-to-do-remote-good page, here: >>>>> >>>>> http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/wgchairs/wiki/RemoteParticipation. >>>> >>>> I made a few changes in the wiki page... >>> >>> This is a very helpful page. I made a few tweaks, but not much was needed. >> >> It's a very helpful page for remote-attendance. :^) >> >> It's, alas, not up to the task for remote _participation_. :^( >> >> "Typically 5-15 seconds" isn't good enough. (I'm not arguing whether >> _one_ second is even "good enough".) >> >> The delay needs to be known. Adjusting to a five-second delay is one >> thing; adjusting to a 30-second delay (which is too-often seen) is quite >> another. Adjusting to an unknown delay is no longer "participation". >> When asking whether the remote audio is OK, _measure_ the delay. >> >> The part about one person being both jabber-scribe and minute-taker >> needs to be "Don't do this!" > > First, please note that some WG are "jabber-active" and others are > not. In other words, some consistently have many participants on > jabber, and others consistently do not. > > I really like to take minutes on jabber, as (at least for the > jabber-active WG). Two pro's : > > - the jabber logs are saved, so even if my laptop dies, the log does not. > - In a jabber active WG, the inevitable ellipses will be filled in by > other participants. > > Two con's : > > - If the local WAN goes down, so does the jabber log. (And, this does happen.) > - It can drown out the other jabber chat by other participants. > > I have suggested a number of times that there be 2 jabber chats for > each WG meeting, one for discussions, one for > minute taking, but without any traction so far. > > Regards > Marshall > >> >> If remote participation is important, minutes need to happen separately. >> To some degree, minutes can be pieced together after the fact, provided >> there is a separate backup audio recording. >> >> The Jabber Scribe needs full-time access to a microphone. Arguably the >> Jabber Scribe should be sitting next to the meeting Chair. >> >> Mentioning the issue of adjusting for the audio delay when recognizing >> remote participation is good -- but there needs to be a practical way of >> accomplishing this. Sitting next to the meeting Chair and mentioning >> who wants to be channeled seems plausible... >> >> Projecting the jabber stream probably isn't a great idea for the general >> case (there will certainly be exceptional cases). Advising the in-room >> participants to use the jabber room is always good, though. >> >> The part about clarifying the name of each speaker at the microphones >> is a start, but again there needs to be a practical way... >> >> In practice, what I find works best is "Who's talking" questions in >> jabber, followed by "Please state your name for the minutes" if nobody >> answers in jabber. (Of course, this coming 30 seconds _after_ the person >> mumbled his/her name _is_ disruptive, but IMHO it's important enough to >> justify the disruption.) >> >> It's asking _a_lot_ of the Jabber Scribe to note the name of every >> person who speaks, but possibly the Jabber Scribe could guess and add >> a question-mark when s/he's at all uncertain. (If the Jabber Scribe >> already has no idea whatsoever, asking on-mike is called-for IMHO.) >> >> I suggest that the jabber stream SHOULD contain the name of every >> participant speaking at the microphone (or channeled). In practice, >> the Jabber Scribe can't simultaneously type and speak; so someone else >> would probably need to add the "channeling NN" note. >> >> <asbestos-suit = ON> >> >> -- >> John Leslie <[email protected]> >> _______________________________________________ >> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to >> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html. >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html. > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html. https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
