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

[Robert Moskowitz <[e-mail]>]

On 3/27/20 1:24 PM, Carrick Bartle wrote:
>> As a 2-year newbie to IETF I have found it hard to get into the 
>> Jabber rooms for the meetings.
>
> As a <1-year newbie, I've also had difficulty with Jabber. When Adium 
> wasn't sending my messages, I ended up creating an entirely new 
> account and getting a different client, which worked once, but the 
> second time, I couldn't get into a room for unknown reasons until it 
> just magically worked about 10 minutes later.

I hope that after this week, there will be some good work in wringing 
out the bumps and making test enviornments available.  Also if wg's 
interim virtual meetings were to use Jabber, more people will gain the 
needed skillls to guide new comers.

>
>
>
>> On Mar 27, 2020, at 10:14 AM, Puneet Sood 
>> <puneets=[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:puneets=[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 1:00 PM Ted Lemon <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>     On Mar 27, 2020, at 12:17 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF
>>     <[e-mail]
>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>     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. 
>>
>>     This is natural.  The way the IETF does mic lines is useful for
>>     making progress on technical issues, but kind of sucks for
>>     controversial issues.  We could almost certainly come up with a
>>     more effective consensus-building process than a linear mic
>>     line.  Jabber has better quality because it’s free-form, so
>>     people don’t just get one shot at expressing themselves. 
>>     Communication is an iterative process—often when I speak at the
>>     mic and then hear the next people, I realize that I didn’t
>>     express myself well and want to clarify, but it’s too late.  This
>>     isn’t a problem when there aren’t very many people in the
>>     discussion, but it breaks down quickly when there are.
>>
>>>     Are other people noticing the same thing?
>>
>>     Yes.  However.
>>
>>     Jabber is not point and click.  It took me until halfway through
>>     the second meeting I attended before I figured out what I was
>>     doing wrong and got it working.   Yes, there is a lot of good
>>     conversation in the jabber room, although it goes by pretty fast.
>>       If we want jabber to be more democratic, we need to make it
>>     point and click.  Which probably means we need something other
>>     than jabber, or else need to spend a lot of money building better
>>     tools.
>>
>>
>> +100 to that. As a 2-year newbie to IETF I have found it hard to get 
>> into the Jabber rooms for the meetings. I have only read the logs of 
>> the Jabber discussions after the meetings so have not been able to 
>> participate live.
>>
>> Another usability issue with Jabber for newcomers: Most members use 
>> less descriptive names on Jabber so it takes a while to map a person 
>> I know in the physical world (from their WG list comments/document 
>> names/hallways discussions) to their Jabber handle. Not sure of the 
>> solution but something that more directly maps the handle to the 
>> person's name.
>>
>>
>>
>>     --
>>     107attendees mailing list
>>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/107attendees
>>
>> --
>> 107attendees mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/107attendees
>