Re: scribes

[Spencer Dawkins <spencer_dawkins@yahoo.com>]

Ya know, a lot of it depends on the quality of the Jabberers...

Harald had asked me to note-take the plenaries in Vienna.
Afterwards, I was amazed at the high quality of the Jabber logs
- I wasn't just using them to fill in stuff I missed, I was
using them to verify quotes etc. They were almost word-for-word,
slide-bullet-for-bullet descriptions, and had the most
comprehensive speaker-identification I've seen. If you wish you
had transcripts of your working group discussions, you would be
envious.

I've chaired two meetings under Jabber - the first had good
Jabber logs, afterwards, and we ended up filling in minutes gaps
when one of our scribes submerged for about a month afterwards.
The second had almost no notes - I was disappointed, because I
was spoiled from the first meeting.

Sadly, I actually take notes in he said/she said format, which
would work well for Jabber, but I don't ever seem to actually be
Jabber scribing during the meetings. The last couple of
meetings, the high rate of people running around in ad-hoc mode
(that would torch my connection, or at least break my stream of
notes) has scared me off. Maybe if we will be penalty-boxing
these people (see ietf@ietf.org) in the future, I'll make the
jump to hyperspace...

Spencer

--- Sam Hartman <hartmans@mit.edu> wrote:
> >>>>> "Avri" == Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> writes:
> 
>     Avri> hi, i have noticed in the last few days that there
> are very
>     Avri> few scribes working the jabber conferences.  i know
> it is
>     Avri> hard to get volunteers, but we should at least be
> trying.
> 
> Is that really useful?  To the extent they are usful I've
> found Jabber
> to be much more useful for side discussions than for text
> participation by third parties?