Subject: Re: Chatroom feedback in a WG session?

From: [email-masked] (Sean Doran)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 13:50:04 +0000 (GMT)

FWIW, there are a number laptop+wireless users at IETF conferences
(and even more so at NANOGs) who are on IRC and the like during
wg and plenary sessions.  My experience of this is that the tone
reflects the medium, or at least the channel.  However, it clearly
does involve people physically present in the meeting, people nearby
(e.g., in the hallway), and people who did not make it to the conference 
venue at all.

Since it's already happening, an experimental attempt to formalize
this extension to IETF group collaboration seems like a good idea.

Perhaps to some extent this could help the doers who are claustrophobic
decide when to try to squeeze into a wg.   With some leadership on tone,
it could also be a productive tool, instead of just a diversion.

The one-to-one "IM"/email approach, where a nominated person channels 
information to the WG/plenary seems like a weak cousin to a group chat 
involving many people.  

The obvious downside is that it is hard for the speaker-at-the-moment
to follow along, and he or she may find it disconcerting when twenty
or thirty people break out laughing for no apparent reason.

	Sean.

---

From: "W. Mark Townsley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 19:06:15 +0200

Reposting as original seems to have been delayed by spam filters as I used the 
wrong source email address. Apologies if this comes through twice.

Marshall Rose wrote:
  >>> melinda:
  >>
  >>
  >> i.e., it better simulates the remote participant being there in person.
  >> fair is fair <g>.
  >
  >
  > err, that's not entirely true. in a physical meeting, it's usually the case
  > that people will behave themselves and not go running up to the mic every 3
  > words and start speaking over the person at the front of the room...
  >
  > however, setting aside the cost of a second projector, i like the idea. but,
  > my question to you is whether you could live with "someone with the manners
  > of a jim fleming" being a remote participant...

To get around the multiple projector problem, as well as the obvious distraction
of a chatroom operating alongside the presenter, one could switch over to chat
room on display during the "Q&A" period of a presentation. Presumably, the
remote users are also watching via multicast, so the interaction would be remote
participant -> live event via text, and voice/video back. I like the idea of
yelling at the video camera and getting a typed answer on the screen back.

For a relatively small investment, and a volunteer to operate the machinery, one
could could install a KVM switch in front of the projector, switching back and
forth during the presentation as well. This is more of a simulation of a user
walking up to the mic, giving the remote participant the "floor" and the
associated flaming if the comment is a waste of everyone's time.

For active and unmoderated discussion about the WG session, though not
necessarily for interaction *with* the WG session, we could advertise a separate
"whispering in the back of the room" chatroom that is not projected.

- Mark

  > /mtr