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

Re: Automated minutes publication

From: Stephen Curran <swcurran@cloudcompass.ca>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 10:47:09 -0800
Message-ID: <CAFLTOV5EdGRanTFZ1UmUjpnYfbKOz_cO9Vtg6sTDuOeqd7+zYg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: "W3C Credentials CG (Public List)" <public-credentials@w3.org>
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>
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
<https://calendly.com/swcurran>*
Received on Monday, 18 November 2019 18:47:24 UTC

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