Re: Automated minutes publication

Agree on both counts about Zoom transcription, Amy.  I didn't realize
scribes were doing real time typing in the call.  #impressive #scary

Totally agree on your point, Heather.


On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 11:07 AM rhiaro <amy@rhiaro.co.uk> wrote:

> Also the Zoom transcript shows up a little after the call, not live
> during it, so it wouldn't let people read along [and interject via text
> if desired] as the call took place (which our currently scribing does).
>
> On 18.11.19. 20:59, rhiaro wrote:
> > If the Zoom automatic transcript works it'll put the scribes out of a
> job!!
> >
> > Seriously, is it good? Would it work well with all the jargon and
> > different accents on the calls? But I can't imagine it would be very
> > accurate, that seems way too futuristic.. And in my experience
> > correcting a slightly off transcript takes as long as just transcribing
> > it from scratch, but perhaps zoom has better tools. I suspect what would
> > happen is everyone would assume the transcript is fine without checking
> > it, until at some point in the future we have to go back and confirm
> > what someone said. Additional overhead would be adding in
> > proposals/resolutions, and segmenting by topic headings.
> >
> > In answer to the question Stephen, the audio is transcribed in IRC in
> > real-time by a human (the scribe) with varying amounts of accuracy
> > depending on how fast different people type.
> >
> > Amy
> >
> > On 18.11.19. 20:47, Stephen Curran wrote:
> >> Thanks again, Manu.
> >>
> >>>    hope my response wasn't taken as me thinking it was a "dumb"
> question
> >>> (re-reading my semi-ranty response, I can see how one may have come to
> >>> that conclusion)... If I did, I apologize, that was not my intent.
> >> Definitely fine.  I was serious about putting that information into a
> >> FAQ so the next person asking (there will be more...) can be directed
> >> to that.
> >>
> >> IRC - the list of features you mentioned are not compelling to me as
> >> other than tradeoffs (vs. showstoppers).  Thanks to Amy though for
> >> mentioning what I thought may be the case - IRC is used between
> >> meetings not just within meetings.  I thought that might be the case.
> >> Consolidating on a single chat system is as hard as ever in the
> >> current landscape. The other specific question I had is whether IRC
> >> (or something) is doing real-time call transcription?
> >>
> >>> I personally don't
> >>> think there is a big barrier to joining the calls (you can use a phone,
> >>> you can use the Web, you can use a native client... we support it all,
> >>> but the SIP clients kinda suck... onsip is great, but maybe people have
> >>> issues with that one as well?).
> >> I'll reread the guidance on how to join. Last I checked it was phone
> >> and SIP only for audio.
> >>
> >> From Brent:
> >>> Zoom chat only exists for the duration of the calls and I wouldn't
> >> recommend using it as the place to scribe or queue.
> >>> My preferred setup would be Zoom for audiovisual and IRC for notes,
> >> queuing, and conversation.
> >>
> >> When you record a Zoom call, you get the chat record as well, so it
> >> does last longer, if you choose to use it.  The challenge with
> >> combining multiple systems in a single call is that the transcription
> >> would not know who is talking, which is pretty important.
> >>
> >> Thanks for the feedback.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 8:53 AM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com
> >> <mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>     On 11/17/19 12:46 PM, Stephen Curran wrote:
> >>     > Interesting arguments, and the accessibility is the one that
> >>     > resonates. Thanks for taking the time to send them.  I'm hoping
> that
> >>     >  you take that email and put it in a document for others dumb
> enough
> >>     >  to start this conversation again.
> >>
> >>     I hope my response wasn't taken as me thinking it was a "dumb"
> >>     question
> >>     (re-reading my semi-ranty response, I can see how one may have come
> to
> >>     that conclusion)... If I did, I apologize, that was not my intent.
> >>
> >>     It's a good question, and one where people want to do something
> about
> >>     it. We're at the point where someone actually has to do the work,
> and
> >>     that person that does the work should be aware that the system has
> >>     more
> >>     requirements that may appear at first blush.
> >>
> >>     > If you do, please add what it is that IRC brings to this vs. any
> >>     > other in-conference chat system (like the one in Zoom, for
> example).
> >>
> >>     Queue management, everyone being able to control the voice system,
> >>     systems control (aside from queue, audio... publication of minutes,
> >>     etc.)... accessibility (IRC has lots of clients, a number of them w/
> >>     decent accessibility... allowing someone that's blind/deaf to
> control
> >>     all parts of the call). I'm in a rush typing this out, there are
> other
> >>     things, but they escape me in my haste.
> >>
> >>     > I don't see that the "missing" features listed are actual
> >>     > requirements but rather as ways to keep things working as they
> have
> >>     > in the good old days.
> >>
> >>     Well, things work the way they do because they've evolved over the
> >>     past
> >>     20+ years to meet everyone's needs. That said...
> >>
> >>     > No response needed, we've both made our points. While I would love
> >>     > to see a change, I'm good to end this discussion on a "we
> disagree"
> >>     > basis.
> >>
> >>     I don't think we disagree as much as you might think. I personally
> >>     don't
> >>     think there is a big barrier to joining the calls (you can use a
> >>     phone,
> >>     you can use the Web, you can use a native client... we support it
> all,
> >>     but the SIP clients kinda suck... onsip is great, but maybe people
> >>     have
> >>     issues with that one as well?).
> >>
> >>     I'd like to see us try to get Zoom working as an option (for audio
> >>     bridge only) since people seem to like it. The screen sharing stuff
> >>     concerns me, but that's manageable if we require all presentations
> >>     to be
> >>     sent out in accessible forms or for presenters to be aware that not
> >>     everyone can see the screen. Moving away from IRC concerns me,
> because
> >>     of the special privileges, vendor lock in, and cost associated with
> >>     running Zoom rooms and taking minutes. All of this is work, and
> >>     something I can volunteer our folks to do... but if there is an
> >>     enterprising individual in this group that would like to tackle
> >>     Zoom, by
> >>     all means, go at it, just please be sure to take heed of the
> previous
> >>     requirements... if you don't, people will complain (and some of them
> >>     will have really good reasons for complaining).
> >>
> >>     -- manu
> >>
> >>     PS: The irony here is that W3C uses WebEx for WG meetings, a mostly
> >>     proprietary system, for their WG calls... the plan was for it to be
> >>     temporary... but now it doesn't seem like it's going to be
> temporary.
> >>
> >>     --
> >>     Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
> >>     Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> >>     blog: Veres One Decentralized Identifier Blockchain Launches
> >>     https://tinyurl.com/veres-one-launches
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Stephen Curran
> >> Principal, Cloud Compass Computing, Inc. (C3I)
> >> Technical Governance Board Member - Sovrin Foundation (sovrin.org)
> >>
> >> /Schedule a Meeting: //https://calendly.com/swcurran/
> >>
> >
>
>

-- 

Stephen Curran
Principal, Cloud Compass Computing, Inc. (C3I)
Technical Governance Board Member - Sovrin Foundation (sovrin.org)

*Schedule a Meeting: **https://calendly.com/swcurran
<https://calendly.com/swcurran>*