Subject: Re: Hearing and Speaking Problems for Non-Native Englishspeakingparticipants.

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 15:30:37 -0400

Dear Dave,

I've chaired two Jabbered BoF meetings, and had "mixed results" - one
meeting where we had excellent Jabber logs, and one where we had almost
none...

When we had Jabber logs, they were extremely helpful. The thing I would be
slightly concerned about is, I really like merging multiple scribe streams
to figure out what REALLY happened, modulo side conversations, potty
breaks, and jet-lag-induced naps, and I'm not sure we'd get multiple Jabber
streams. So it would be good to have multiple scribes, one of whom could be
using Jabber.

This does point up the difference between scribe notes and WG minutes. In
most cases I've been involved with, we've had the choice of "he said/she
said" notes with all the details, or summaries without all the details. We
have the possibility of publishing BOTH, and I think Jabber would help us
make this happen.

And what do others think?

Spencer

Original Message:
-----------------
From: Dave Crocker [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:10:59 +0200
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Hearing and Speaking Problems for Non-Native
Englishspeakingparticipants.

general question:

>> 	It seems that scribes and notetakers are often recruited at the
>> last minute -- just as the WG session is starting. Often, there are
>> either no volunteers or the chair is left accepting the assistance of

is there some reason that wg official scribe and jabber scribe cannot be
exactly the same typing actions?  in other words, is there any reason
that typing notes to jabber cannot serve as the notes given to the
chair?  One advantage is that the chair then gets comments included from
others.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 11:30:15 +0200

> And what do others think?

I'm a bit puzzled as to why we don't just record the entire meeting from the 
sound board, and do the minutes off of a complete transcript.   This would 
provide a nice incentive for non-mike-talkers, and it's a lot more reliable 
than relying on random scribes, particularly since the scribes in question 
are usually active participants in the wg whose comments are lost when they 
go up to the microphone.

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:11:38 +0200

We're in solution space, but I think there should be a separate big
screen and projector for the jabber scribe (or detailed notetaker --
it's not clear whether the jabber thing has a future) so that people can
see what the speaker says written down.

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 07:33:25 -0700

Scott and All,
In bringing up the legal issues about not having some process for people
with vocal problems to participate, it seems to me that what's missing is a
Jabber Services BCP to define this.

What it should contain is Jabber Support protocol (set of operational
methods) as we are noting here for allowing someone to participate fully
through Jabber. Also for archiving and reducing the Jabber Sessions to the
formal archive of the WG and the IETF as a whole.

Just my 2 cents

Todd
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott W Brim" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 3:11 AM
Subject: Re: Hearing and Speaking Problems for
Non-NativeEnglishspeakingparticipants.

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 07:35:25 -0700

Scott
Jabber style (chat) access is not a choice but probably rather a legal
necessity to maintain the IETF's being open to all.
The other issue is how the people in a meeting are supposed to
relate/Inter-relate to the Jabber based speaker??? I suggest we ask Jorge on
this regarding the ADA and other issues that the IETF's processes may not
meet yet.

As to the jabber concepts themselves, my feeling is that this is not just a
Jabber issue for people remotely accessing the meetings, but rather its
about 'Handicapped Access' to the Standards Process, and there are any
number of legal reasons for insisting on/mandating this ...

So maybe the real question here is to answer this then - how would we allow
someone who was mute (handicapped)  from some vocal-chord trauma or throat
cancer, etc. to participate and to participate equally whether they are
there or online.

Todd

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 17:40:26 +0200

Background info only......

--On 17. juli 2003 11:30 +0200 Ted Lemon <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> said" notes with all the details, or summaries without all the details.
>> We have the possibility of publishing BOTH, and I think Jabber would
>> help us make this happen.
>>
> I'm a bit puzzled as to why we don't just record the entire meeting from
> the  sound board, and do the minutes off of a complete transcript.   This
> would  provide a nice incentive for non-mike-talkers, and it's a lot more
> reliable  than relying on random scribes, particularly since the scribes
> in question  are usually active participants in the wg whose comments are
> lost when they  go up to the microphone.

In meeting rooms where we use microphones anyway, recording the sessions 
wouldn't change the dynamics much. In smaller meetings (some still occur 
:-), it would change the dynamics; the introduction of room mikes has been 
one of the things that has made IETF meetings more formal (and sometimes 
less fun?) over the last 10 years. I don't know how much knowing that a 
meeting is recorded would impact people's style of participation.

Professional transcription services cost money (I have heard the number, 
but don't remember - USD 250 occured somewhere, but I can't remember if 
that was per hour or per 2 1/2 hour session - we do about 200 hours of 
meetings at an IETF, so at 250/hour, it would be about 50.000 USD), and 
would require expert review to get all the terms right (I remember an ICANN 
session that consistently transcribed "DNSSEC" as "DNS Sex"). Just knowing 
that the recordings were available (MP3 files?) would probably be good 
enough for many people, and would allow scribes to focus on recording what 
decisions were made - something that can be quite hard at times from "he 
said, she said" style minutes!

(BTW, this is sometimes done. Someone once transcribed my commencement 
speech from the Minneapolis plenary, I proofread/edited it, and published 
it as an article in the ISOC newsletter. It was the only way I'd ever get 
to know what I actually said - but I have no idea how much time it cost!)

                     Harald

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:32:08 -0500

It's worth noting that meeting audio/video for working groups meeting in
MBONE-equipped rooms has been available for playback for a number
of years, and I don't know that I've noticed any difference in behavior
between MBONE sessions and non-MBONE sessions. So maybe no
one behaves differently for very long ("reality television meets the
IETF")...

I know Harald knows this, and will remember it as soon as the jet lag
wears off. Or maybe it's all that DNS Sex?

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ted Lemon" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 10:40 AM
Subject: Transcriptions (Re: Hearing and Speaking Problems for Non-Native
Englishspeakingparticipants.)

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 13:56:58 -0400

> It's worth noting that meeting audio/video for working groups meeting
> in MBONE-equipped rooms has been available for playback for a number
> of years, and I don't know that I've noticed any difference in
> behavior between MBONE sessions and non-MBONE sessions. 

During the brief time I was a WG chair I used to specifically request
non-MBONE rooms because I found it disruptive to force people to
queue at the microphone.  Of course, this was for a relatively small
group.  Once you have a few hundred people in the room you have to have
some access control mechanism - if not a microphone, then some other
sort of talking stick, recognition by the chair, etc.

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 21:03:16 +0200

> sort of talking stick, recognition by the chair, etc.

We actually do the opposite: request a room with multicast, so we can tap
into the feed and record the meeting. I've found it to be very helpful in
writing the minutes. Of course, this was for a group which was big enough
to need room microphones anyway... 

Colin