dfiled@uncmed.med.unc.edu (08/22/90)
We are in the process of setting up a program that involves about a dozen
medical school faculty members at various sites around the U.S. We want to
use both electronic mail and electronic conferencing to allow these persons
to communicate with us and with each other throughout the course of this
two-year program.
After some initial, fairly generic training in electronic communications (in
Chapel Hill--the members of this group are here for short stints about six
times during the two-year period), we will ask each of them to set up an
account on whatever mail system they have locally. (Prior to this, I will
have done some "long range" investigation as to what is available to them and
what the usage policies are at their local sites; this will be presented to
them at the training session.)
In a previous incarnation of this program (1988-89), electronic mail was used
quite effectively by the members of the group. They have to do a lot of
communicating because one of the projects undertaken is a funding proposal,
the text of which is developed jointly by the whole group. However, mail
also had its inadequacies; often the substance of a two-person communication
became something that the whole group needed to consider. Using group
aliases helped somewhat.
We now feel that an electronic conferencing system is the answer to this type
of need--indeed is tailor-made to address this sort of thing. However,
with electronic conferencing, all the conference members need to be able to
access the same host system--the one that is running the conference software.
So, our present plan is to enable all the members to be able to log on
remotely to the system in Chapel Hill that runs the conference. We are
assuming that the telnet command on Internet hosts will provide this
capability.
Thus, some questions:
(1) Given the fact that most, if not all, of the members are academic faculty,
and at major state or private universities, is it likely that their
respective institutions have Internet hosts with telnet capability?
(NOTE: In some places, the medical school is not physically part of the
"main" campus--and can in fact be anywhere from across town to another
city in the same state.)
(2) If the answer to #1 is 'yes,' can we expect these same institutions to
grant telnet capability to a general (non-technical) user? (Most of the
program participants are not what you would call computer literati.)
(3) If 'yes' is still the answer, is it realistic to expect 'decent' response
times for interactive sessions with a remote host using telnet.
(4) Should we be considering other options? (I don't _think_ that our
university can be accessed via Telenet or Tymnet. If, for any individual,
we can't get remote login capability, we will be asking them to do a
long-distance dial-up login, but we'd prefer to avoid this since the
program can't reimburse them for their phone bills.)
Thanks for any information or opinions.
Dean File
Lab for Computing and Cognition
UNC-CH School of Medicine
dfile@ralph.med.unc.edua342@mindlink.UUCP (John McKechnie) (08/23/90)
If this isn't a possibility, I would investigate Delphi or GEnie. They have many access ports across the country, and besides EMAIL, have conference areas. Most computer magazines have info on joining. Delphi is also available through both Telenet and Tymnet.
gl8f@astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (08/26/90)
In article <894@beguine.UUCP> dfiled@uncmed.med.unc.edu () writes: >We now feel that an electronic conferencing system is the answer to this type >of need--indeed is tailor-made to address this sort of thing. However, >with electronic conferencing, all the conference members need to be able to >access the same host system--the one that is running the conference software. Not necessarily. There are several "chat" programs out there which are distributed, such as Internet Relay Chat. All you need to access it is a machine which can speak TCP/IP to the Internet at large. No reason to live in the stone age. -- "In fact you should not be involved in IRC." -- Phil Howard
lars@spectrum.CMC.COM (Lars Poulsen) (08/27/90)
>In article <894@beguine.UUCP> dfiled@uncmed.med.unc.edu () writes: >>We now feel that an electronic conferencing system is the answer to this type >>of need--indeed is tailor-made to address this sort of thing. However, >>with electronic conferencing, all the conference members need to be able to >>access the same host system--the one that is running the conference software. What do you mean by conferencing software ? In my view, USENET is about what I'd want.... but the word "conferencing software" is ill-defined, and smacks of putting the solution before the problem definition. I would want something that would - allow lively discussion - allow a permanent record to be kept - not require face-to-face meetings - not require everyone to be present at the same time -- / Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM
david@twg.com (David S. Herron) (08/28/90)
In article <1990Aug25.170503.21457@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gl8f@astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: >In article <894@beguine.UUCP> dfiled@uncmed.med.unc.edu () writes: > >>We now feel that an electronic conferencing system is the answer to this type >>of need--indeed is tailor-made to address this sort of thing. However, >>with electronic conferencing, all the conference members need to be able to >>access the same host system--the one that is running the conference software. > >Not necessarily. There are several "chat" programs out there which are >distributed, such as Internet Relay Chat. All you need to access it is >a machine which can speak TCP/IP to the Internet at large. IRC and ForumNet both aren't appropriate -- "electronic conferencing system" in this case means long term storage and retrieval of TEXTUAL conversations. Neither IRC nor ForumNet don't archive the discussion, and are not long term. Perhaps something like IRC or ForumNet (a distributed conversation system) could be a part of their solution. Usenet, on the other hand, is an electronic conferencing system which is distributed and therefore doesn't require a central machine, and goes to places where the Internet does not. One might or might not have to go through the rigamarole of setting up an Official Newsgroup, depending on your exact goals. I guess that you should want to set up your own newsgroup hierarchy & distribute it to the participating places. One problem with Usenet is that the default expiration time for articles is fairly short -- 2 weeks or so. Depending on the project you might want to keep the conference archived for longer than that. The expiration times can be juggled and, with the "C" version of News, can be settable on a per-group basis without large performance penalties. >No reason to live in the stone age. Agreed.. -- <- David Herron, an MMDF & WIN/MHS guy, <david@twg.com> <- Formerly: David Herron -- NonResident E-Mail Hack <david@ms.uky.edu> <- <- Sign me up for one "I survived Jaka's Story" T-shirt!
tale@turing.cs.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (08/28/90)
dfiled@uncmed.med.unc.edu: >>We now feel that an electronic conferencing system is the answer to >>this type of need--indeed is tailor-made to address this sort of >>thing. However, with electronic conferencing, all the conference >>members need to be able to access the same host system--the one that >>is running the conference software. Greg Lindahl: >Not necessarily. There are several "chat" programs out there which are >distributed, such as Internet Relay Chat. All you need to access it is >a machine which can speak TCP/IP to the Internet at large. In article <7851@gollum.twg.com> david@twg.com (David S. Herron) writes: IRC and ForumNet both aren't appropriate -- "electronic conferencing system" in this case means long term storage and retrieval of TEXTUAL conversations. Neither IRC nor ForumNet don't archive the discussion, and are not long term. Perhaps something like IRC or ForumNet (a distributed conversation system) could be a part of their solution. Aren't appropriate for what? For dfiled's application? That doesn't matter much as far as Greg's reply is concerned. Even if you don't want to count IRC and ForumNet then you still have USENET, as you pointed out. At any rate, IRC and/or ForumNet could also be useful for their application. Why limit them? "electronic conferencing system" can mean just about anything that the blanket "Computer Mediated Communication" covers. CMC systems take a variety of forms, from real time interactive discussion systems to longer term article systems to, arguably, talking to your cronie through /dev/audio on two sparcstations. A comprehensive CMC system will offer all of this and more, making the guidelines the EFF wants to get nailed down all the more important for when such a system is used en force. There is no reason to limit "electronic conferencing system" to just "long term storage and retrieval of TEXTUAL conversations" since there is nothing at all inherent in either the words or the concept that implies such a limitation. Incidentally, just because IRC and ForumNet don't directly archive the discussion hardly means it will be lost. I've have logged a few interesting discussions in interactive conferencing systems, with the knowledge and approval of those involved. It was not hard at all, and some were cleaned up of spurious other crap (which also appear in "long term storage ...") and make very interesting records of what transpired. In fact it was even easier for me than taping a telephone call would be; presumably rules for directly logging such conversations would be akin to those which govern taping of telephone lines. This however is one of the reasons the EFF now exists -- to take the presumptions out of these things and help us clearly define policies for effective use and societal advancement with CMC of the future. -- (setq mail '("tale@cs.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet")) The most remarkable thing about looking at a picture of myself was the sudden realisation that my hair is in fact parted on the left and not the right.
tek@ms.uky.edu (Thomas E. Kunselman) (08/28/90)
tale@turing.cs.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes: > >Incidentally, just because IRC and ForumNet don't directly archive the >discussion hardly means it will be lost. I've have logged a few >interesting discussions in interactive conferencing systems, with the >knowledge and approval of those involved. It was not hard at all, and >some were cleaned up of spurious other crap (which also appear in >"long term storage ...") and make very interesting records of what >transpired. In fact it was even easier for me than taping a telephone >call would be; presumably rules for directly logging such >conversations would be akin to those which govern taping of telephone >lines. This however is one of the reasons the EFF now exists -- to >take the presumptions out of these things and help us clearly define >policies for effective use and societal advancement with CMC of the >future. Yes, it is possible to log newsgroups and on-line 'chat' discussions. It is difficult to make something like this easily useful for the average user. Sure, I can log discussions from newsgroups, but what if I wanted to setup an electronic way to handle project management in my office? I'd want each of my staff members to be able to access the system, but I wouldn't want discussions on how to handle required state reporting mixed up with other types of reporting that has no relevance. It would be nice to have a software package that would automatically archive messages from staff members, storing them in their appropriate hierarchical groups. Some groups might only need to be viewed by myself and the responsible staff member, since the work doesn't involve anyone else, but would still need to be included in the overall whole. Or what if a cross campus committee was setup with subcommittees and members used a software system to complete business? A system which carried conversations on various levels, the postings of the main committe, the work done by subcommittees. A protection scheme that would allow only appropriate subcommittee members to carry on discussions in their areas, but would allow any interested committee member to view the conversations. A way to categorize postings to differentiate between member debate and the end statement's of a subcommittee or the committee. I'd be very interested in learning of such software if anyone knows of something that might fulfill such a purpose. > (setq mail '("tale@cs.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet")) > The most remarkable thing about looking at a picture of myself was the sudden > realisation that my hair is in fact parted on the left and not the right. Thom -- Thomas Kunselman {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!tek Planning and Institutional Research bitnet: irkunsel@ecuvm1.bitnet East Carolina University internet:tek@ms.uky.edu Greenville, NC 27858 (Educate, Don't Legislate!)
gl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (08/28/90)
In article <tek.651848445@s.ms.uky.edu> tek@ms.uky.edu (Thomas E. Kunselman) writes: > Sure, I can log discussions from newsgroups, but what if I wanted to >setup an electronic way to handle project management in my office? Seems strange that you'd want to put discussions on a computer when they could be face to face. >It would be nice to have a software package that would automatically >archive messages from staff members, storing them in their appropriate >hierarchical groups. Some groups might only need to be viewed by myself >and the responsible staff member, since the work doesn't involve anyone else, >but would still need to be included in the overall whole. For example, in IRC, one could use string channels with hierarchical names, invite-only channels, and write a little automaton for each channel which stores the discussion in a file with appropriate protections. Just keep in mind that Joe Average Staff Member talks one hell of a lot faster than he types. -- "Fuck you, Wumpus." -- Joe Stong
tek@ms.uky.edu (Thomas E. Kunselman) (08/29/90)
gl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: >In article <tek.651848445@s.ms.uky.edu> tek@ms.uky.edu (Thomas E. Kunselman) writes: >> Sure, I can log discussions from newsgroups, but what if I wanted to >>setup an electronic way to handle project management in my office? >Seems strange that you'd want to put discussions on a computer when >they could be face to face. Here the idea really isn't to track a discussion, rather it would be to provide documentation for procedures required to complete tasks in an office. A way to allow multiple users to update their parts of the whole schedule, allowing users a global view as well as a view into their own areas of responsibilities. >>It would be nice to have a software package that would automatically >>archive messages from staff members, storing them in their appropriate >>hierarchical groups. Some groups might only need to be viewed by myself >>and the responsible staff member, since the work doesn't involve anyone else, >>but would still need to be included in the overall whole. >For example, in IRC, one could use string channels with hierarchical >names, invite-only channels, and write a little automaton for each >channel which stores the discussion in a file with appropriate >protections. Just keep in mind that Joe Average Staff Member talks one >hell of a lot faster than he types. I'm not talking about real-time communication here. It is often very inconvenient for people to get together for face to face meetings, even when they are on the same campus. An electronic system which did not require all members to be present at the same time seems like a much more time efficient way do this. -- Thomas Kunselman {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!tek Planning and Institutional Research bitnet: irkunsel@ecuvm1.bitnet East Carolina University internet:tek@ms.uky.edu Greenville, NC 27858 (Educate, Don't Legislate!)
gl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (08/29/90)
In article <tek.651869206@s.ms.uky.edu> tek@ms.uky.edu (Thomas E. Kunselman) writes: >Here the idea really isn't to track a discussion, rather it would be to >provide documentation for procedures required to complete tasks in an >office. A way to allow multiple users to update their parts of the whole >schedule, allowing users a global view as well as a view into their own areas >of responsibilities. Well, then you want something entirely different from 'conferencing'. You want the equivalent of a large bulletin board on which a schedule is laid out, with only the "correct" people being allowed to change the information on the board. >I'm not talking about real-time communication here. It is often very >inconvenient for people to get together for face to face meetings, even >when they are on the same campus. An electronic system which did not >require all members to be present at the same time seems like a much more >time efficient way do this. Actually, I'd suggest a physical pen-and-paper solution, it would probably be more cost effective. I've seen zillions of organizations waste a lot of money doing stuff like this. -- "Fuck you, Wumpus." -- Joe Stong
tek@ms.uky.edu (Thomas E. Kunselman) (08/29/90)
gl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: >In article <tek.651869206@s.ms.uky.edu> tek@ms.uky.edu (Thomas E. Kunselman) writes: >>I'm not talking about real-time communication here. It is often very >>inconvenient for people to get together for face to face meetings, even >>when they are on the same campus. An electronic system which did not >>require all members to be present at the same time seems like a much more >>time efficient way do this. >Actually, I'd suggest a physical pen-and-paper solution, it would >probably be more cost effective. I've seen zillions of organizations >waste a lot of money doing stuff like this. Could you post some references or contacts in these organizations? I'm interested in hearing the specifications for their systems and the experiences that each organization had with the system, both good and bad. Thanks, -- Thomas Kunselman {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!tek Planning and Institutional Research bitnet: irkunsel@ecuvm1.bitnet East Carolina University internet:tek@ms.uky.edu Greenville, NC 27858 (Educate, Don't Legislate!)