The asterisk paradox

[Mike McGrath]

There was some discussion at the last meeting about how to use asterisk 
in the future for meetings or even if we should.  This has brought up an 
interesting problem:

Early adoption of asterisk is slow because not everyone has the 
equipment to use it.  People don't feel compelled to get the equipment 
because adoption is slow.

So what do we do about it?  I feel very strongly asterisk as a medium is 
much more efficient to use then IRC and helps bring the team together to 
work as a more cohesive unit.  I also believe it will do the same for 
other groups.  But we cannot do the meetings in asterisk at this time 
because it raises the barrier to entry by too much and provides no 
meeting logs.  So I'd like to propose the following possible solutions.

1)  Meet 15 minutes before or after the meeting for a 
supplemental-meeting in asterisk to shake out some things.  Then 
continue with the meeting in IRC as normal.
2)  Meetings in IRC are generally very slow, it might be worth it to do 
the meetings as normal but also have people log in to asterisk to bs and 
generally just chat, get to know each other a bit better.
3) Do as we did last week, have people who can't talk join the 
conference anyway and ask questions in the chat room while having 
someone transcribe and provide minutes.
4) ?  you come up with some.

In general I think 2) is most practical for now.  I'd prefer 3) since I 
think everyone can have headphones and listen in to the main meeting and 
ask questions in IRC but having someone volunteer to transcribe / 
summarize the meeting is a huge commitment.

This is a big change for us, having said that I think anyone who has 
used the technology will agree that it works very well.  It will work 
even better as people start to use it more and get used to their 
equipment and more people feel the need to get a proper mic/head set.  
Fedora is very much about new technologies and early adoption.  I'd love 
for us to be the first OSS community to use asterisk like this, and of 
course if Fedora is going to use it, the Infrastructure team should lead 
the way.  Having said that, any changes like this are raising the 
barrier to entry and that is just a dangerous thing to do.  As long as 
we still have IRC I think we'll be fine but this is something we must 
choose as a group.

Thoughts?

    -Mike

[Jonathan Steffan]

On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 11:30 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
>  There was some discussion at the last meeting about how to use
> asterisk 
>  in the future for meetings or even if we should.  This has brought up an 
>  interesting problem:
>  
>  Early adoption of asterisk is slow because not everyone has the 
>  equipment to use it.  People don't feel compelled to get the equipment 
>  because adoption is slow.
>  
>  So what do we do about it?  I feel very strongly asterisk as a medium is 
>  much more efficient to use then IRC and helps bring the team together to 
>  work as a more cohesive unit.  I also believe it will do the same for 
>  other groups.  But we cannot do the meetings in asterisk at this time 
>  because it raises the barrier to entry by too much and provides no 
>  meeting logs.  So I'd like to propose the following possible solutions.
>  
>  1)  Meet 15 minutes before or after the meeting for a 
>  supplemental-meeting in asterisk to shake out some things.  Then 
>  continue with the meeting in IRC as normal.
>  2)  Meetings in IRC are generally very slow, it might be worth it to do 
>  the meetings as normal but also have people log in to asterisk to bs and 
>  generally just chat, get to know each other a bit better.
>  3) Do as we did last week, have people who can't talk join the 
>  conference anyway and ask questions in the chat room while having 
>  someone transcribe and provide minutes. 
+1


>  4) ?  you come up with some.
>  
>  In general I think 2) is most practical for now.  I'd prefer 3) since I 
>  think everyone can have headphones and listen in to the main meeting and 
>  ask questions in IRC but having someone volunteer to transcribe / 
>  summarize the meeting is a huge commitment.
>  
>  This is a big change for us, having said that I think anyone who has 
>  used the technology will agree that it works very well.  It will work 
>  even better as people start to use it more and get used to their 
>  equipment and more people feel the need to get a proper mic/head set.  
>  Fedora is very much about new technologies and early adoption.  I'd love 
>  for us to be the first OSS community to use asterisk like this, and of 
>  course if Fedora is going to use it, the Infrastructure team should lead 
>  the way.  Having said that, any changes like this are raising the 
>  barrier to entry and that is just a dangerous thing to do.  As long as 
>  we still have IRC I think we'll be fine but this is something we must 
>  choose as a group.
>  
>  Thoughts? 
Should we look at testing speech to text?

Jonathan

[Mike McGrath]

Jonathan Steffan wrote:
>  On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 11:30 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
>    
> > There was some discussion at the last meeting about how to use asterisk 
> > in the future for meetings or even if we should.  This has brought up an 
> > interesting problem:
> >
> > Early adoption of asterisk is slow because not everyone has the 
> > equipment to use it.  People don't feel compelled to get the equipment 
> > because adoption is slow.
> >
> > So what do we do about it?  I feel very strongly asterisk as a medium is 
> > much more efficient to use then IRC and helps bring the team together to 
> > work as a more cohesive unit.  I also believe it will do the same for 
> > other groups.  But we cannot do the meetings in asterisk at this time 
> > because it raises the barrier to entry by too much and provides no 
> > meeting logs.  So I'd like to propose the following possible solutions.
> >
> > 1)  Meet 15 minutes before or after the meeting for a 
> > supplemental-meeting in asterisk to shake out some things.  Then 
> > continue with the meeting in IRC as normal.
> > 2)  Meetings in IRC are generally very slow, it might be worth it to do 
> > the meetings as normal but also have people log in to asterisk to bs and 
> > generally just chat, get to know each other a bit better.
> > 3) Do as we did last week, have people who can't talk join the 
> > conference anyway and ask questions in the chat room while having 
> > someone transcribe and provide minutes.
> >     
>
>  +1
>     
Jonathan, IIRC you were one of the team members that didn't have a 
microphone.  How did that work for you?

    -Mike

[Jonathan Steffan]

On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 11:51 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
>  Jonathan Steffan wrote:
>  > On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 11:30 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
>  >   
>  >> There was some discussion at the last meeting about how to use asterisk 
>  >> in the future for meetings or even if we should.  This has brought up an 
>  >> interesting problem:
>  >>
>  >> Early adoption of asterisk is slow because not everyone has the 
>  >> equipment to use it.  People don't feel compelled to get the equipment 
>  >> because adoption is slow.
>  >>
>  >> So what do we do about it?  I feel very strongly asterisk as a medium is 
>  >> much more efficient to use then IRC and helps bring the team together to 
>  >> work as a more cohesive unit.  I also believe it will do the same for 
>  >> other groups.  But we cannot do the meetings in asterisk at this time 
>  >> because it raises the barrier to entry by too much and provides no 
>  >> meeting logs.  So I'd like to propose the following possible solutions.
>  >>
>  >> 1)  Meet 15 minutes before or after the meeting for a 
>  >> supplemental-meeting in asterisk to shake out some things.  Then 
>  >> continue with the meeting in IRC as normal.
>  >> 2)  Meetings in IRC are generally very slow, it might be worth it to do 
>  >> the meetings as normal but also have people log in to asterisk to bs and 
>  >> generally just chat, get to know each other a bit better.
>  >> 3) Do as we did last week, have people who can't talk join the 
>  >> conference anyway and ask questions in the chat room while having 
>  >> someone transcribe and provide minutes.
>  >>     
>  >
>  > +1
>  >   
>  Jonathan, IIRC you were one of the team members that didn't have a 
>  microphone.  How did that work for you? 
If we are to use voice seriously, I would get a good microphone. I will
just need to know what the plan is.

The last meeting was lacking a true "transcriber" and there were some
non-syncs between voice and non-voice users. If most people at least
listened to the conference, it would not be as bad. I do think that we
should have a per meeting appointed transcriber that tries to bring
terse statements into irc or we find some voice to text software to test
out. There was a nice lag when I was asked questions over voice and then
needed to answer over irc, but it did not bother me.

Overall I really enjoyed it even with not being able to talk back via
voice and request we move forward in building what needs to be built to
make this a viable meeting solution.

Jonathan Steffan
daMaestro

[Luke Macken]

On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 10:48:01AM -0600, Jonathan Steffan wrote:
>  Should we look at testing speech to text? 
I mentioned using sphinx[0] yesterday on #fedora-admin, kind of as a
joke -- but it may be worth a shot ?  Once we are able to save
conferences, then it should be pretty easy to test this stuff out.

luke

[0]: http://cmusphinx.sourceforge.net

[Yaakov Nemoy]

On 8/10/07, Mike McGrath <mmcgrath(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  2)  Meetings in IRC are generally very slow, it might be worth it to
> do
>  the meetings as normal but also have people log in to asterisk to bs and
>  generally just chat, get to know each other a bit better. 
+1 for now

>  3) Do as we did last week, have people who can't talk join the
>  conference anyway and ask questions in the chat room while having
>  someone transcribe and provide minutes. 
+1 in the future

-Yaakov

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 11:30 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
>  2)  Meetings in IRC are generally very slow, it might be worth it to
> do 
>  the meetings as normal but also have people log in to asterisk to bs and 
>  generally just chat, get to know each other a bit better. 
Sounds good to me.  But we do need to follow "Quaid's Rule" and be sure
to keep business in IRC.

>  3) Do as we did last week, have people who can't talk join the 
>  conference anyway and ask questions in the chat room while having 
>  someone transcribe and provide minutes. 
I think we need better transcription.  It's hard to summarize important
points in realtime.  It's also nice to know who's saying things.

It's also hard to have two streams of communication -- if several people
are in IRC asking questions, they're at a disadvantage in knowing what's
going on and being able to raise an issue with a specific point to
people who are discussing things on the phone.

In my case specifically, I comprehend ideas and plans better when
they're written than when they're spoken but I learn more about the
people doing the communication when it's auditory.  (I drive my wife
crazy because I never remember the lyrics of songs, only the tune and
emotional content.)

-Toshio