-1 based on today's experience. It seemed to be incredibly inefficient (only one person can talk at a time), I find it hard to think and form my own opinions when people are talking all the time, and we lost the chair halfway through (networking issues with bluejeans). I couldn't understand people at all in the end, it was just too choppy.

Also the previous points I've raised still apply: video conferencing makes it hard for other people to join the meetings and contribute (a lot of people are always idling in the IRC meeting channels and sometimes provide drive-by feedback on things). Video meetings make it more difficult for non-native English speakers to contribute.

When I originally suggested this, I said that we'd need to trail it for a while before we can really assess whether it's better or not, and I still think that's true.

I was really surprised at the connectivity/call quality issues. I successfully use Bluejeans for multiple meetings every week, and never have the kind of problems I saw today. Very frustrating.

I did notice that, even though Kalev's English was very good when he spoke, he was not able to participate as much during the meeting as he normally does. (I think Jens also tends to be fairly quiet during voice meetings.) It's important that everyone is comfortable with the meeting format and feels able to fully participate, so this seems like a serious issue.

Even for native speakers, It seems harder to enter the conversation with the voice meeting format. You have to carefully wait for the right time to interject. The timing can be quite difficult. We might need to establish a turns list, but that can be challenging to use as well.

But I disagree with Kalev that it was inefficient. I think we clearly accomplished at least as much as we would have with an IRC meeting, and actually a bit more. We had closed two major issues after just 40 minutes of discussion. Normally we require at least a half hour to close a single major issue. The voice format seemed to facilitate taking a quick pulse of the room and quickly coming to consensus. We probably had a bit too much on the schedule for today, but I think the first 30-40 minutes were successful regardless.

Then yes, the end of the meeting was a bit of a disaster. From my end, my first problem was a gnome-shell/mutter bug: my desktop froze and I had to reboot. After I rejoined, I discovered Allan was gone. I tried to keep the meeting going, but was having connectivity issues (with a red connectivity status indicator, and frequent notifications from Bluejeans that it was resolving connectivity issues), so the other participants could not hear me clearly. Eventually Bluejeans froze and I could hear nothing at all. At this point, I clicked the Refresh button in Firefox to refresh the Bluejeans page, and rejoined with an excellent dark green connection. It could be a strange coincidence that my connectivity improved just when I happened to refresh the page, but it certainly suggests there may be a Bluejeans bug here. Due to these issues, we have no meeting minutes for the last 20 minutes of the meeting, and I don't think much happened during that time (although admittedly, I was unable to hear for a fair portion of that time).

I'm really keen to ensure that everyone has opportunity to contribute and speak. We had a few issues that got in the way with that this week.

I created issues where people could add comments to agenda items prior to the meeting, but my email with the details got stuck in moderation (shouldn't happen in future). Then I struggled a bit with the voting and the plethora of options in #114.

In future we need a better way for everyone to indicate their view/position/vote (maybe we could have indicative votes on the etherpad, with people's names pre-filled, to speed things up?)

Also I should have made sure we discussed each option in proper detail in #114 before we jumped to the vote. That's just a matter of better chairing.

(Regarding connectivity: I just had my second Bluejeans meeting of the day, and it was smooth for everyone - which is how it usually is - so I don't know what happened during the WG call.)

We discussed this at yesterday's meeting and there was a consensus that we should extend the video conferencing trial, so that all the members of the WG have opportunity to see what it's like.

At today's meeting, general consent to continue video meetings until it is clear a particular meeting is best suited for IRC, e.g. deference to guest speakers and subject matter experts.

We will continue evaluating whether this is effective. Closing this for now.