Twitter, Google+, Facebook, etc. could be the next steps. Let's embrace new
tools to collaborate.
Let's not. Collaboration based on software running on servers run by the IETF
or a contractor payed by the IETF is fine. Using collaboration tools owned by
the entities you listed, or similar entities, is not.
I'm of two opinions here. One, I agree with Marc that the case has not been
made for the use of proprietary technologies such as you mention; we actually
do pretty well, and the ultimate issue is about effective communication with
all of the relevant participants, not with those few that use a given social
networking service (I, for example, use Facebook, but not twitter and not
google+, and have specific reasons for my choices there). On the other hand,
experiments involving other technologies (we have, for example, experimented
with .ps, .pdf, .xml, jabber, and RFID badges) should not be out of bounds.
Experiments should follow IETF experimental procedure.
Arturo, my suggestion: in some context, after discussion with the
working-group-or-whatever-in-question, use one of the tools you mention to
accomplish IETF work. Take careful notes of what proportion of the indicated
community (if the IPv6 Operations WG, for example, the participants in v6ops)
join the discussions, and what contribution those discussions make. Think about
archives, focused issue discussion (what SMTP readers call "threads"), and so
on. Then write a draft documenting the outcome of that.