Re: [112attendees] WG followup discussions in gather.town (was: Re: HotRFC Gather followup)

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

I looked at Second Live in its first hype wave. I agree with yor
assessment. I think marketing people with a lot of budget to invest
into the second live design cold find good use-cases, but IMHO
not for the IETF use case.

I used zoom side meetings. COmparison between it and gather is
IMHO not binary but i see pro/cons for either. And i wouldn't
have an idea for a simple common superset. But i wold contend that
what is missing in meetecho is better amended by gather than
zoom style side meetings.

Cheers
    toerless

On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 06:27:52AM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
> assuming gather can not cut it for many reasons, some of which you
> enumerated well, what would work?
> 
> back in the day, lisa dusseault tried to get us to use second life.  it
> overcomes a lot of your and my issues with gather.  but, imiho, the
> barrier to entry (what it takes for an individual to get in and make it
> useful) is too high.  and it has not grown in years.  i speak from
> experience, having helped my wife produce ballet in second life for over
> 15 years.  otoh, that one can produce ballet there says a lot for it.
> 
> a numbr of academic/research meetings i attend(ed) use zoom with side
> rooms.  being able to go into side rooms is critical, imiho.  due to
> unforseen circumstances, we have all learned to use zoom; i.e. the
> baarrier to entry has already been overcome.  and it overcomes many of
> the social issues you raise; we get to see each others' faces.  no, you
> can not make cute stage settings, but it sure has proven that folk can
> get work done.  [ don't get me started about teams; and i have not used
> goog's product enough to have a useful opinion. ]
> 
> i use jitsi, like it, run a server, etc.  but it does not have side
> rooms.  barrier to entry negligible as everyone's zoom exterience
> transfers directly.
> 
> can others tell us about experience with environments which could meet
> our needs?
> 
> randy

-- 
---
[e-mail]