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

Re: Automated minutes publication

From: rhiaro <amy@rhiaro.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 20:59:09 +0200
To: public-credentials@w3.org
Message-ID: <6ff3bad2-f566-a985-94c5-841d230aaff1@rhiaro.co.uk>
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/
>
Received on Monday, 18 November 2019 18:59:22 UTC

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