Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. >> ... >> 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. By the way, if I sounded like I consider this "virtual summit" to be no more than just a place for people with heated head to deflate before having a civilized conversation, that was not my intention. I do agree that it is good to have some gathering (or perhaps a couple of them in shifting time to accomodate people from different parts of the world) to help make sure everybody is moving towards the same goal, and I have nothing against a virtual/video meeting for that purpose. Other than that it may be held on Zoom, where I do not particularly like to send people to, after seeing articles like [*1*], that is, but there may not be a viable alternative. I dunno. [Reference] *1* https://www.ft.com/content/f24bc9c6-ed95-4b31-a011-9e3fcd9cf006
