At 19:10 +0200 15/08/09, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 11:42:21 +0200, Vicki Stanton ><vicki.stanton@gmail.com> wrote: >> I hope the transcript issue doesn't get in the way of the argument >> for/against recording the teleconferences. It does seem to me, >> however, that we should be enthusiastically leading the way, not be >> dragged kicking and screaming into compliance with W3C policy. > >Right, the problem from my point of view is that we are already >having inaccessible meetings. Although it is said that meetings are >not required to be attended, at least one of the chairs obviously >considers they are useful and is encouraging more people to attend. >And if you cannot attend all you have is minutes which are generally >crappy or some kind of summary on a blog, such as > >http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/08/12/Mountain-Mohammed-Mohammed-Mountain-Please-Talk#c1250189423 > >and you hope it is accurate. We could improve the situation without much trouble. If you make a significant point (in your assessment) and want to be sure it's recorded accurately, type it into IRC yourself. Too many people (like me) talk fast and assume the scribe is a professional court stenographer with a perfect phone line. Encourage the scribe to 'just dump' as much transcript as they can fill in otherwise. If people take the trouble to get on queue (q+) pay more attention to them than to random statements. There are probably a few more ways we could get the transcript and minutes much better.... -- David Singer Multimedia Standards, Apple Inc.Received on Saturday, 15 August 2009 18:19:54 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:54 UTC