Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> It is OK to have an optional meeting in the hope that a video >> meeting may have a better chance to keep those who easily become too >> aggressive and confrontational in text-only conversation in check >> and instead have civilized conversation. >> >> But I am not sure if it is a good idea to call such a meeting a >> "Summit", given that there are those who prefer not to be seen, >> heard or recorded how they appear and how they sound in a video >> conference. They would not be able to join the conversation held in >> such a "Summit" held only by those who are privileged enough to be >> able to attend. > > I think that this is a very reasonable concern, stated in a very > reasonable fashion. Let's call it something else, sure, and avoid > recording/publishing the event (as we have done in the past at other > in-person events--such as the last Git Merge--which seems like a > lifetime ago ;-).) I am not opposed to recording and publishing for wider dissemination of what was said and agreed on among participants, who join with the full understanding of how the video meeting will later be consumed. What I am hesitant to see is that such an opt-in meeting becomes "you got a chance to attend and have your voice heard---if you didn't come, that was your choice, and whatever objection you give after it does not count" summit.
