Re: [107attendees] Where the action is, at virtual meetings ...

[Alexandre PETRESCU <[e-mail]>]

Le 27/03/2020 à 22:59, Carrick Bartle a écrit :
>> Slack has a channel feature (#channelname) but channels are not visible simultaneously, one has to 'switch' between channels.
> Slack also has threading, which I agree would be super helpful in these discussions.


Ah, thanks!  I think I have noticed that.

Some people spawn a thread out of a main slack discussion, but it seems 
to me that spawned thread becomes a 1-to-1 private discussion, invisible 
to others.  I wll check that slack threading tomorrow with my group at work.

Alex

------------

PS:

I meant 2 to 4 simultaneous threads visible by all in the jabber room.  
Something like when I have 2 buffers in emacs and see both 
simultaneously.  Or like in side-by-side windows.

There should be a thread with minute taking, one with slide advancement 
(next slide please), maybe a few threads with live translatins of the 
webex speech, and then a few threads with discussion, maybe a AD-talk 
SuperThread.  Some such threads should have priority over the webex 
discussion, I think.

I take advantage to make a related remark.  I think I have noticed in 
real f2f discussion two or three people can talk simultaneously and a 
separate listener can say s/he understands the three of them.  Yet, 
there is no single person that can listen while talking, or that can 
talk while listening.   Some people need about half a second after 
talking in order to listen, others need more.

This semantics (3 person talk simultaneously, and one understands the 3) 
is happening with some TV talk shows, and happens in some WG f2f 
meetings, but I think it can not happen with webex.  In webex only one 
person can talk meaningfully; if there are two persons that talk a third 
person will only receive one of the talks.  That's how I think it is, 
but I might be wrong.  The only way to check is to have a f2f meeting 
and webex in same place, and check.  But that's not for now :-)

Alex

>
>
>> On Mar 27, 2020, at 2:27 PM, Alexandre PETRESCU <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Le 27/03/2020 à 20:59, Yoav Nir a écrit :
>>>> On 27 Mar 2020, at 19:17, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I've heard almost every session chairs saying words like "we have X people who have signed the bluesheets, and 2X people who are in WebEx now, please go sign the bluesheet". So that's fine.
>>>>
>>>> But I'm also noticing that there are about X people in Jabber, and honestly, this week, the jabber rooms are incredibly active - probably because they're playing the part of hallway discussions for each session. That's been especially true for BOFs, but almost every session has had a non-stop active jabber room for most/all of the session.
>>>>
>>>> There are a lot of conversations there, that aren't making it into the mike line, so roughly half the people in WebEx aren't seeing them, and in the cases I'm familiar with, the jabber conversation has been at least as well-informed and serious as the voice conversation. And the voice conversation doesn't always end up in the same place as the jabber conversation.
>>>>
>>>> Are other people noticing the same thing?
>>>>
>>> Yes, and in some ways this is concerning. I don’t think the Webex is giving chairs and ADs a “feel of the room”.
>>>
>>> For example, yesterday in privacypass we had a presentation about the problem they are solving complete with swimtrack diagrams.  The presentation ended with a slide asking if people understood the issues and the proposed solution. There were some questions, but that’s not where the real conversation was. The real conversation happened in Jabber, and people were questioning the assumptions, what the problem was, and what was this privacy that it was supposed to be protecting.  It was a very real, technical discussion, but the proponents were not really there. They were busy with the presentations.
>>
>> In such busy discussions I some times had on jabber in a WG meeting I missed something: there was only one focus point, one single scrolling sequence; there should have been 2 or 3 parallel advancing lines of chatter visible simultaneously.
>>
>> The discussions were inter-twinned, but they should have been in parallel, but visible simultaneously.
>>
>> Email clients solve this with 'threads' of discussion, but chat clients dont have such feature.  Slack has a channel feature (#channelname) but channels are not visible simultaneously, one has to 'switch' between channels.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>> The Webex session moved on to proposed token formats, which is a solution detail, and to conversation about whether the (proposed) group should deal only with the web or also other things. All this time, the Jabber conversation was still about the basic assumptions.
>>>
>>> If you listen to nothing but the Webex recording, it seems like there was consensus and a bunch of people volunteering to review/contribute/implement.  If you read the Jabber log, it looks like we’re not even sure what this is trying to accomplish.  In a real face-to-face meeting, some of this jabber conversation would spill into the mic line. Here they were rather separate.  I don’t know how we can judge consensus for such a session.
>>>
>>> Yoav
>>>
>> -- 
>> 107attendees mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/107attendees