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