Closed jcomeauictx closed 7 years ago
The basic rules are quantum allocation and equal-time resolution. Once a turn has been allocated, it can be used to completion. So, having used less time is only relevant at resolution time - at the transition from speaker to speaker. The experimental results support the benefits of this configuration, so we will maintain it until we have evidence that an alternative is better.
Allowing interruption of a speaker opens the possibility of gaming the system and may be less effective even without strategic considerations. Equal-time resolution already motivates the speaker to conclude as quickly as possible in order to have easy access later in the conversation. A purely time-based allocation system assumes equal competence of all users. Since this assumption can hardly be justified, improvements are likely to come from a structure that compensates for competence differences. In the first instance, this can be done via a priority system that doesn't require interruptions. Self-management of Criticism in Dialogue.pdf
Long version: Self-management of Criticism in Dialogue (long).pdf
The need for interruptions can be tuned with the current system by adjusting the "turn time." By making it just a few seconds, interrupts are effectively permitted. This, however, undermines the ability of a speaker to make a longer point. A fully built-out system for meeting management would allow certain types of interruptions. In Roberts Rules of Procedure, 17 levels of priority are specified. The highest allow interruption. For example, a "Point of Order." http://diphi.web.unc.edu/files/2012/02/MSG-ROBERTS_RULES_CHEAT_SHEET.pdf
OK, I was thinking I had the logic wrong, and that it was supposed to switch mid-turn if the speaker had already used a full quantum. since it's correct I'll close this.
I noticed when testing that a speaker is allowed to finish speaking to a multiple of the "turn" time even though another in the speaker pool has precedence. the logic needs to be overhauled.