Just a general comment: I think that as far as decision-taking
is concerned, we need to treat WG jabber sessions (and
teleconferences) exctly like face to face meetings - any
"decisions" taken must in fact be referred to the WG mailing
list for rough consensus. Otherwise, the people who happen
to attend a particular jabber session or teleconference have
undue influence.
So, it would be OK for a WG chair to write to the WG
"On yesterday's jabber session, there was a strong consensus
to pick solution A instead of B. The arguments are summarized
below and the full jabber log is at X. Please send mail by
<date> if you disagree with this consensus."
It would not be OK to write
"On yesterday's jabber session we decided to pick solution A."
Brian
Stig Venaas wrote:
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Hello;
On Mar 25, 2006, at 1:28 AM, john(_dot_)loughney(_at_)kolumbus(_dot_)fi wrote:
Maybe we should leave the Jabber meeting rooms up all the time, and
use them for more dynamic discussions.
John
Do you mean during the meetings (which I think was done this time,
Monday - Friday) or
permanently ?
My thinking was permanently. A wg can then at any time decide to take
some specific issue to jabber.
AFAIK the previous jabber rooms were available permanently, and I
wouldn't be surprised if the new ones (rooms.jabber.ietf.org) are
either. So all I would like to ask, is that this is done. It would then
be up to the individual wg whether they want to make use of them.
Apart from using the jabber rooms for ad-hoc discussions, they should
also be used for interim wg meetings of course.
Stig
Regards
Marshall
- original message -
Subject: Re: Jabber chats (was: 2 hour meetings)
From: Stig Venaas <stig(_dot_)venaas(_at_)uninett(_dot_)no>
Date: 03/24/2006 5:01 pm
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
From: Tim Chown [mailto:tjc(_at_)ecs(_dot_)soton(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk]
Well, if we make remote participation too good, we may end up
with rather empty meeting rooms and a bankrupt IETF ;)
What we should do, given the rush of work that happens pre-ID
cutoff, is maybe look at such technology for interim
meetings, and have the IETF support some infrastructure to
help interim meetings run more
effectively, maybe even without a physical meeting venue. Some WGs
might then run more interim virtual meetings and help
distribute the workload over the year more smoothly.
You mean like holding a bi-weekly teleconference?
VOIP is getting to the point where this is practical.
Personally I find jabber (and similar technologies) much more convenient
than voice. I've used that a few times with a small group of people to
discuss and solve technical problems. I feel it allows more interactive
discussions and is also easier non-native English speakers,
I think using the wg jabber rooms we got for regular discussions of
specific issues is a great idea.
Stig
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf