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 21:06:23 +0200
To: public-credentials@w3.org
Message-ID: <0424b2fc-6ef4-0323-790a-4594fda061fb@rhiaro.co.uk>
Also the Zoom transcript shows up a little after the call, not live
during it, so it wouldn't let people read along [and interject via text
if desired] as the call took place (which our currently scribing does).

On 18.11.19. 20:59, rhiaro wrote:
> 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 19:06:35 UTC

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