Re: ditch voip/sip

I have limited experience with Jitsi and I'm not sure if JitsiMeet is the
same product. Honestly, I forget the specifics only the sentiment.

To be clear, I am totally fine with supporting the open source alternative
even if it's not as good a user experience as Zoom. We are a very
sophisticated audience and can probably afford to donate some of our effort
to improving or working around Jitsi. On the other hand, I would have made
the same argument about us being sophisticated enough to use SIP :-)

- Adrian

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 2:13 PM Dmitri Zagidulin <dzagidulin@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Adrian - what are the points of friction that you've experienced with
> JitsiMeet?
>
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 2:10 PM Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Every alternative to Zoom that I've experienced adds friction for the
>> average attendee. The issue seems to be, how much friction will we tolerate
>> on average in order to respect the serious concerns of a few? I will
>> survive either way.
>>
>> - Adrian
>>
>> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 1:53 PM Rouven Heck <rouven.heck@consensys.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Heather, I agree - something which reduces the friction for most people
>>> to join is important. I personally had often trouble to attend calls
>>> because I need SIP only for these calls, not in any other context. Many
>>> communities seem pretty happy (at least for now) with Zoom - it's used in
>>> Hyperledger, DIF, CCI, etc.
>>>
>>> Manu, I don't think there is a vendor lock-in risk with Zoom or OtterAi.
>>> -> all recordings from Zoom can be stored in mp4 format and transcripts
>>> chat & Otter in generic text formats that could be stored on a wiki, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 7:26 PM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/28/20 10:53 AM, rhiaro wrote:
>>>> > Also I've had good success with hosted jitsi - which is open source,
>>>> and
>>>> > can be self-hosted - with medium-sized groups. Their hosted version
>>>> > should support 35 people well (with video, I presume more with audio)
>>>> > and I think if you self-host it and set it up right it supports a lot
>>>> > more (I haven't tried this yet though). Jitsi also has screensharing,
>>>> > chat and hand-raising features.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed, was just thinking along the same lines. If folks want to move to
>>>> another platform, let's please not move to a proprietary solution (Zoom
>>>> + otter.ai).
>>>>
>>>> Jitsi is open standards, open source, supports automatic transcription
>>>> via jigasi, and would (potentially) integrate more cleanly with existing
>>>> tooling. It would probably not cost much more than what we're doing
>>>> right now and DB would be willing to pick up that cost.
>>>>
>>>> Here's the thing that's always stopped us -- someone has to commit to
>>>> setting this system up and running it for years (the current system has
>>>> been in place for over 6 years now).
>>>>
>>>> I remember when AOL was going to be around forever and folks migrated to
>>>> their services entirely? Remember Google+, all that content, gone.
>>>> Accessibility and archival matter. What happens when otter.ai fails, do
>>>> we still have all of our transcripts on infrastructure we have control
>>>> of?
>>>>
>>>> My fear is the community is going to go for the easiest choice and get
>>>> vendor locked in w/o considering the ramifications of what that means to
>>>> the archives and work output of this community.
>>>>
>>>> -- manu
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
>>>> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>>>> blog: Veres One Decentralized Identifier Blockchain Launches
>>>> https://tinyurl.com/veres-one-launches
>>>>
>>>>