Fred,
On 25/02/2013 07:05, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
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
Exactly. The inter-personal communication toolset we use in the
IETF is quite limited because of some unwritten constraints,
which certainly include:
- very widely available, including free or open source solutions
- operating-system independent
- standardised, non-proprietary
- not unduly plagued by advertising
- preferably, standardised by the IETF itself
- most tools allow time-shifting for worldwide collaboration
- reasonably secure
- do not damage privacy but do not encourage anonymity
I think we have to be very careful going outside that set
of constraints (which is why I'm not a big fan of Webex or for
that matter Meetecho).
...
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,
s/archives/public archives/
focused issue discussion (what
SMTP readers call "threads"), and so on. Then write a draft
documenting the outcome of that.
Yes
Brian