E: Yeah .
F: I mean it 's like there are different layers of whatever
F: and different types of conventions ,
F: and if it were an acronym , then I would I think that it would make sense f for them to have input into that level of things ,
F: but I wouldn't want them to be changing A: I 'm just A: Imagine that we reverse this
A: and they were keeping the repository and we were d collecting meetings and sending them to them .
F: Yeah .
F: Mm - hmm .
A: If I found an error , and I sent them email and said " here 's this error " , and I didn't get a response for a couple weeks , I would stop sending them the my data
A: and I would start collecting it here
A: and we would end up with two corpora .
F: Well ,
A: And I don't want that to happen .
F: yeah .
F: I agree .
A: So we have to make it convenient for them to make changes that they wanna make .
F: Well F: Well , I see now , we 're k back into the same situation as when we were , uh , talking about a allowing people to edit the transcripts before they <comment> become public .
F: So there 's a question of how easy or how hard to modify ,
F: and how that impacts the amount of changing that 's done .
A: Mm - hmm .
F: And I I think that it 's , um ,
F: I I have received some suggestions for change , which I 've made .
F: And um , I think with an acronym , that 's a clear case where it would be an easy change to incorporate .
F: But it would worry me to have people , um , having free reign to change these things , because of the need to have consistent conventions .
F: And people who are only just visiting the data might not have a sense of the larger system .
C: Yeah , that 's what I would be worried about too .
E: Well , I think E: yeah , I think there are probably ways that you can say that , you know , only certain users are allowed to change things .
F: Yeah .
F: Mm - hmm .
E: Uh , so we can probably restrict it to be E: You know , f casual users who are just browsing can just r get it read - only ,
E: can't check in to the archive .
F: Mm - hmm .
E: Whereas we could say " other people " , you know , " these people are allowed to actually submit changes " .
C: Right .
E: I mean , I I think one thing that 's probably everybody would agree on is that there will never be a point where you know , we can say that for sure there 's no problems with any of the transcripts .
E: I mean there 's ,
E: uh f You know , something 's going to get overlooked at some point ,
E: or somebody 's gonna wanna make a change somehow .
E: So we need to have some mechanism for , um , handling changes in the future .
F: I agr I agree but I have to also add one other thing which i before I forget it ,
F: which is Adam 's point about when you were reviewing the IBM transcripts .
F: u This was mentioned at the beginning of the meeting .
F: You said that there were some places where it wasn't what y was written already , but you could see how they might have thought that 's what it said .
F: So there it 's not just a right and wrong thing .
F: Sometimes there tru there are absolutely stretches where there is no no k if you were at the meeting and you could ask the person ,
E: Yeah . Exactly .
E: Mm - hmm .
F: maybe , m you know , they could they could 've told you ,
F: but five minutes later they might not have been able to tell you ,
E: Right .
F: even if they were listening to it .
F: So , sometimes it isn't right and wrong ,
E: Yeah .
F: sometimes it 's multiple interpretations ,
F: and E: Good point .
E: Yeah .
F: Now But of course , this does raise the possibility of allowing , um , an extra annotation for , you know , alternative interpretations of a stretch .
E: Mm - hmm .
F: But I just wanted to say it isn't simply right or wrong .
E: Yeah , that 's a good point .
F: Or overlooked or not overlooked .
F: Sometimes they 're truly ambiguous ,
F: and um , uh , um ,
E: Mm - hmm .
F: nice to have a notation for that ,
B: Gotta go .
F: but . Yeah .
E: Yeah .
C: I mean , I like that idea
C: because even a casual user can always send email to whoever 's in charge ,
E: Mm - hmm .
C: and say , you know , " we 'd like these changes "
A: Well C: and , you know , hopefully we 'll give them a response .
A: I just I don't s
C: And if they really do it a lot , and they say " we 're a casual user but we want a chance to change the transcripts " then we can face that if it happens ,
A: I don't see that this is e
A: Yep .
A: Can you write " unread " on that ?
C: but
A: Yeah , thank you .
C: I don't really see the people at UW that I know of right now making huge amoun investing huge amounts of time in changing transcripts .
C: But I could be wrong .
A: Probably not transcripts ,
A: but it would be nice to have one mechanism for all the files .
A: And they 're certainly gonna wanna change tools .
C: Yeah .
A: And so you know , it 's the same as source code .
A: You you release source code at some point .
A: And , either you have to do everything or you share responsibility .
E: Yeah I mean a lot of the open source pro projects face this same problem .