Zach wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:36 AM, Mark Mielke <mark at> wrote:
>>  No - I don't think so. Team messages have been fine for tracking team
>> efforts for over a decade. Voice is more efficient. There is really no
>> reason it NEEDS to have separate channels. Some people might not be able to
>> figure out the new protocols, just like some people never used team messages
>> appropriately.
> There is an important difference with the two mediums. With text
> messages one can scan several lines of messages in a second or two. If
> 5 people are talking all at once it will be much harder to parse out
> the individual meaning and then rank it accordingly this is trivial if
> one is a fast reader. Also one need not compensate for variables such
> as word slurring, speed, pitch, volume, all which can affect how
> readily the message will be received.

The only reason you NEED to takes several seconds to scan text, is 
because it's a passive poll-based approach to communication. If it was 
in real time, and it is received immediately, it takes as long as the 
person talking requires. If 5 people are talking all at once the 
majority of the time, then at least 4 of them are newbies, and they 
should be squelched. The option - of having people on the same time, 
segregate into channels, is the wrong approach. The team should work 
together, and with some exceptions, the team should communicate on the 
same channel. If they cannot work this out - they are not a team, or 
they are incompetent. Either way, separate channels is not going to fix 
their problem.


Mark Mielke <mark at>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...