See also: IRC log
SH: How you (DS & SLH) feel about the symposium?
DS: it went well, the flow was good. The transcript+logs and extra comments will help to write a draft of the research note.
SLH: I appreciate the work of DS and the work we did together. We could effectively use more time. It's gonna be interesting to see how E4R will manage in 3 hours.
<sloandr> +1 to shawn
SLH: it is interesting to see how active was the IRC chat. Note that the IRC chat is timestamped while the transcript it isn't. It'd be great to put both together.
SAZ: kudos to SLH and DS. I am happy to see how well DS started in the group. I know that SLH and DS did a lot of work behind the scenes. I am looking forward to the guidance of good practices that can emerge from this experience so that future symposia can benefit from them.
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask (NOT NOW - at the end of the discussion) about the report input
DS: just wanted to emphasise the need to balance a predefined structure that will shape the research note and the flow of the discussion. It is key to have a look to the coverage of the submissions and how it fit with the topics we deal with.
SH: I think it was really good: it was more
conversational than discursive.
... it was therefore easy to follow and may have increased the amount of
comments in the IRC, making it more participatory.
<shawn> [ advanced planning: where do we want the discussion to go - objectives, goals for what we want for output of the discussion ]
SAZ: different symposia have different style which may differ depending on the goal of each symposia. It was pretty clear that a clear line was being followed between the questions that arose on the fly and the ones already established. This responsiveness is good to have and can be planned if the goal is more exploratory.
<shawn> Markel: as said in mail, good. lots of effort to organize. went smoothly. personal preference: fewer people taking part.
<shawn> ... somewhat confusing
<shawn> ... congratulate Shawn, Dave, Shadi
SAZ: there is some benefit in having a smaller group but this requires to have the right people.
I meant the number of presenters rather than the people taking part.
SH: is there any way to ask about the involvement of participants?
SH: so that we make the most of our resources
... maybe we could try that for the E2R
<shadi> [try it informally -> not announced publicly]
<sharper> [sure - lets just the core group try it]
<shawn> Markel: clarify - less people speaking. open to lots of (non-speaking) participants
SH: any other question?
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask (NOT NOW - at the end of the discussion) about the report input
SLH: one of my questions about the report is: how much should the papers and discussion define the report? versus how much additional research should we incorporate?
SAZ: initially, we said that text customisation
and E4R were related and the report would go together but we still haven't made
a decision about that. It will depend on the outcomes of the next symposium.
... regarding SLH's question, in previous notes editors were quite
knowledgeable about the topic but generally the edition of the research note
should mainly get the input from the symposium.
DS: probably better to have separate reports, yet clearly relate them to each other
SH: I agree with SAZ, the symposium should feed the note but the intro, background or conclusions can add questions that were not raised in the symposium.
PT: we have a number of notes coming up…do we want to keep the current structure or we prefer a more flexible view on it?
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask for draft of mobile report to see how it is looking for input into the tc4r notes...
SAZ: keeping consistency would be better.
<peter> (ambitious :-)
SLH: we have started working on the note so that we can look at the mobile note at the same time.
<peter> perfecto!
SH: regarding the mobile note, it should be ready reasonably soon.
<peter> We still have some editing to do etc.
<peter> but so long as the note is sean as draft
SH: regarding the Mobile note we have the roadmap
meeting where some experts will give some input. I wish forthcoming notes would
do something similar
... we will share the Mobile note by Friday
SLH: that'd be great so that we can look at both notes together
<sloandr> thankyou simon
KM: I do hope that most of the things are said, the agenda is out there; thanks Shadi. We have prepared the questions; we will be under pressure considering the amount of people taking part but we are going to target specific presenters with specific questions as it was done in the previous symposium.
SH: is all in place so far?
KM: everything is under control and has been taken into account. We have good materials from DS and SLH to prepare our discussion. It won't be very different from the previous event,
KeM: i wonder whether all panelists have registered as it is seems we are full
SAZ: I'll send you the list of participants;
we'll make sure we will assign a line to panelists.
... I have been seen some questions from Andrea, it was a little bit of
confusion about the agenda and timing. I want to make sure that everything is
ready for that.
KM: we will stick to the outline of the agenda, which is online now. We will frame our questions according to this agenda.
the noise in the background is terrible!
SAZ: regarding logistics, are there any questions?
I can barely hear anything
:-D
<annika> zakim. mute me
SAZ: we will be opening the lines 1 hour before so that authors can test the lines. Let me know if you have any request.
<kmatausc> yes, we invited the authors to log in 1 hour before the symposiustarts
KM: I wonder if there is any support for muting/unmuting
SAZ: the captioning will be provided, it will run
in parallel. I'll do the muting and unmuting in the backchannel, actually this
one #rd
... the front channel will be the public channel
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to note that we were 10 mins late due to particiaptns joining :(
<peter> unrelated side question encase I forget: do we have the transcripts from the mobile symposium?
SLH: in our case we were still 10 minutes late bc participants were late joining. We may have a official starting time 10min before
<Zakim> sloandr, you wanted to discuss using the transcript
<shawn> +1 to live captioning being very helpful for many people - chairs, participants, etc
DS: the transcript is of such a good quality that makes it very helpful resource (a side effect of having an accessible event).
SAZ: a tip to KM and KeM: remind --constantly-- participants how to raise their hands.
<sloandr> +1 to shadi
<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to remind to keep reminding people about how they can raise their hands
KM: i was wondering if it is appropriate to say that we start the agenda of 2 hours after the 10 minutes.
SAZ: there is still a buffer of 10 minutes in the end.
SLH: I was suggesting to start 10 minutes earlier
KM: then we would need 2 hours + 15 minutes
SH: it might be a good test for the future. It's
purely up to you: if you think this is the best way to run the symposium this
is the way to proceed.
... any other business?
SAZ: good luck KM, KeM and Andrea
... I'm looking forward to it
<Klaus> am very nervous already (-: thanks for help
<kmatausc> we will need luck ;) thank you
<peter> buena suerte :)
DS: are we having a telconf next wednesday?
SH: it might be a good idea to keep the momentum
... I'll send the agenda out and see what happens