RE: WG meeting structure

["STARK, BARBARA H" <[e-mail]>]

> From: Michael Richardson
> 
> STARK, BARBARA H <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     > Engaged discussion to resolve open technical issues is hard to do in
>     > rooms with 100+ people. Interim meetings, "unstructured time"
> meetings
>     > (using WebEx and an iPad-as-speakerphone for remote participants),
>     > working on topics that "the masses" don't care about, etc. are often
>     > the best way to get such engaged discussion.
> 
> Doctor, Doctor, it's hurts when I try to resolve technical issues in a room with
> 100+ people....
> 
> So, why do we keep trying to do this? It doesn't work any better with the
> speakers at the front.  That is, we don't resolve issues any faster.
> (Sure, the audio might be better)

Maybe the experiment should be to have a small room with a table/U where only active list-participants are allowed. Stream the Meetecho from this to a large room, which now becomes a remote site. There can be a mic in the large room for people who want to talk to the small room. And a moderator/jabber scribe in the large room (who don't need to be a chair or active participant) to manage the large room mic and identify who is at the mic.

If the small room is small enough, it might be possible to use a single non-directional mic for the whole room. And have a single camera to get everyone in the room (I've seen this done with a camera from above or from in front -- depending on layout). 

The acoustics of a small room will be much better than a table in a big room.

Just a thought.
Barbara