W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > November 2019

Re: Automated minutes publication

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 11:51:50 -0500
To: public-credentials@w3.org
Message-ID: <f43b5162-a579-64ed-1626-41c233101fac@digitalbazaar.com>
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
Received on Monday, 18 November 2019 16:51:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:19:03 UTC