zlacker

>>isodev+(OP)
Thankfully nothing like this is in Jitsi Meet’s TOS: https://jitsi.org/meet-jit-si-terms-of-service/

It never ceases to amaze me how companies choose the worst software!

>>_ddzr+6c
How does Jitsi handle 500-person+ conference calls these days? This is the killer zoom feature - it looks like Jitsi can handle up to 500 now. https://jaas.8x8.vc/#/comparison .

That's personally not enough for many remote companies. So if we're going to have to have Zoom on our machines anyway (to handle an all-company meeting), why not just use it for the rest?

>>ebiest+hh
Are 500-person conference calls actually productive? Surely the number of speakers in any such meeting will be a small percentage of listeners?

>>donalh+pj
It's useful.

It's more of a large-scale broadcast situation. Think of large corporate town halls, town council meetings, etc.

>>CorpOv+Uj
At some point though why not just collect questions beforehand, record the whole thing and let people watch it on their own time. At that scale there'll be no interactivity during the meeting anyway.

>>barbaz+sr
Because that's how you end up with projects that take 3 years to plan instead of 3 months. A live Q&A where all of the experts who can answer questions and everyone interested in the subject who may have questions are in the same room (live or virtual) is a lot more productive compared to what you are suggesting.

If something they said in the main presentation was missing important details that you need to do you work, why do you need to wait days/weeks for them to gather all the questions, find all the answers, and publish a video, when they could just answer it live in a few seconds?!

>>max51+Cn1
Having 500+ people on a project is how something takes 3 years to plan.

"At that scale there'll be no interactivity during the meeting anyway."