Re: Automated minutes publication

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.

On Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 10:01 rhiaro <> wrote:

> I find minuting in IRC, the same channel that is used for chat outside
> of meetings sometimes, to be particularly useful. It lets people observe
> the calls without having to explicitly join them, and also provides
> continuity between meetings as everyone knows the place to go for a
> synchronous conversation, when the mailing list might be too much
> overhead. I'm aware that I might be a bit of an anomaly as someone who
> is always connected to IRC; I know for many people the IRC is just as
> ephemeral as a zoom chat would be. Is it possible for zoom chat channels
> stay around between meetings, or do they only exist for the duration of
> the call? Is it possible to join the chat without joining the call?
> On 18.11.19. 18:51, Manu Sporny 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.
> >

Received on Monday, 18 November 2019 17:10:27 UTC