Re: [111attendees] So, what are jabber scribes actually doing, these days?

John

> On 30/07/2021, at 1:09 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> --On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 12:12 -0500 Spencer Dawkins at
> IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> ...
>> What I thought, was that chairs needed to be looking at the
>> mic queue. which by default is toggled with the chat window,
>> and might not have the screen real estate to detach the chat
>> in Meetecho, so you can move it to another part of your screen
>> (or another Display), or might not know you can detach the
>> chat window at all. If the chairs can see both (especially if
>> the meeting has more than one chair), ISTM that the chairs
>> would know about questions from jabber at the same time as
>> everyone else.
> 
> In addition to chair bandwidth, screen real estate, etc., there
> is a more fundamental problem: with the current Meetecho setup,
> it has impossible (or, at least non-obvious) to have both the
> chat and participant frames open at the same time.    Without
> the latter open, and a good deal of screen real estate and
> attention to scrolling, it is not possible to see the queue or
> figure out who is speaking if the speaker is not transmitting
> video.  There are ways to solve the chat visibility part of the
> problem.  

You can detach the chat window so that it is always visible.

Those participants who have their audio unmuted go to the top of the participant list, and are highlighted in green.  If they are speaking then there is a yellow pulse over their profile photo, which can apply to multiple people at once.  No scrolling needed.

> The speaker recognition problem could be solved by
> putting a small "now speaking"  line with a name somewhere near
> the top center (or bottom center) of the screen.   And, modulo
> those who need to be able to type rather than speak (as you
> noted in your follow-up), some of the rest of the problem could
> be solved by explaining to Meetecho who the official
> Jabber-wstcher is and letting them put others in the queue.
> 
> <rant> Most of these suggestions have been made many times
> before.  At least my experience had been that back in the days
> when Meetecho was a trusted partner, these issues and the
> tradeoffs got discussed among knowledgeable people and were
> either implemented or, when rejected suggestions came up again,
> there were clear explanations of why they were infeasible or bad
> ideas.  I can't tell, but it certainly looks like we have
> slipped Meetecho into "just a contractor" mode with decisions
> being made by someone else, out of the view of those who would
> prefer to technical work in the IETF than monitor every
> administrative meeting and announcement and who obviously are
> not trying to use these tools to get the work of the IETF done.
> </rant>

No we have absolutely not pushed Meetecho into being "just a contractor", they are a valued partner and we work very well together.  If you have any doubts about that then ask them directly.  

It is disappointing that you have escalated a personal concern that you have with our services into such a strong criticism when that is entirely unsupported by any evidence.  

Jay

> 
>    john
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 111attendees mailing list
> 111attendees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/111attendees
> 

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
jay@ietf.org