Subject: Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility

From: Aaron Yi DING <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 20:54:49 +0100

On 06/08/13 18:31, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:
>     > An entirely different approach would be to have all speakers make 
> a
>     > 'reservation' into a single meetecho (or whatever) online queue, 
> and then get
>     > called in order, whether local or remote and independent of what 
> microphone
>     > they are at.  This gets accurate identification into the online 
> system, with
>     > the entry task distributed.
> 
> +1.

+1 too.

> And move the microphones to the people, rather than the other way 
> around.

This is indeed friendly, although standing up to walk a bit is also 
good, at least f2f participants won't sit on chairs the whole day..  
adding this option to the existing one will be nice.

Cheers,
Aaron

> --
> Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
> 
>

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 15:58:12 -0400

On 2013-08-06, at 15:54, Aaron Yi DING <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> And move the microphones to the people, rather than the other way around.
> 
> This is indeed friendly, although standing up to walk a bit is also good, at least f2f participants won't sit on chairs the whole day..  adding this option to the existing one will be nice.

For what it's worth (not much) I would miss the line at the mic. There are useful conversations that happen within the line that I think we would lose if the mic followed the speaker, and I also think that pipelining the people at the mic promotes more fluid conversation. But these are minor points, and I'm mainly just waxing nostalgic.

Joe

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 12:03:53 -0800

On 8/6/13 11:58 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
> For what it's worth (not much) I would miss the line at the mic.
> There are useful conversations that happen within the line that I
> think we would lose if the mic followed the speaker, and I also think
> that pipelining the people at the mic promotes more fluid
> conversation. But these are minor points, and I'm mainly just waxing
> nostalgic.

I actually think that this is not a small point.  The people in
line are the people with issues and the ability to hash stuff out
quickly is pretty nice.

Melinda

---

From: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 13:48:10 -0700

On 08/06/2013 12:58 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
> For what it's worth (not much) I would miss the line at the mic. There are useful conversations that happen within the line that I think we would lose if the mic followed the speaker

If the conversations are useful, should they not be happening as part of 
the meeting?

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 17:15:01 -0400

> line are the people with issues and the ability to hash stuff out
This only works if the queue is fairly short.  When the queue gets 
longer, and the microphones are in fixed positions, it's not unusual for 
the topic to jump around from one speaker to the next - and then each 
speaker has to re-establish what context he's talking about. It's very 
hard to get convergence under those conditions.

I'd actually like to see the microphone queue discipline replaced with 
something that could handle more than two currently active speakers.   
Multiple wireless microphones would probably work well enough, if we 
could change the room setup to make access to those microphones fairer.

(though it could still be challenging to incorporate remote speakers 
into the mix)

Keith

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 15:39:40 -0400

On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>wrote:

> quickly is pretty nice

They can also negotiate and reorganize each other.

For example, if I am at the mic wanting to raise a new topic  and there is
someone with an issue on the current one they will usually ask if they can
cut in. Another frequent case is when someone raises an issue and someone
actually knows the answer.

That sort of thing can be pretty important when a statement of fact is made
that is wrong, particularly when it is the alleged opinion of someone else.
In Orlando someone asserted X had stated Y would happen which being in the
security area and knowing that Y was idiotic and X was most unlikely to
have said it, I pointed out that the speaker had likely misunderstood. When
I later met up with X they were surprised anyone would think they thought Y
because that would be idiotic.

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/