On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 07:13:58PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > 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. Ah, thanks for your clarification (and sorry for the misunderstanding). I figure that any synchronous discussion should augment the on-list discussion, not replace it. Thanks, Taylor
