Hi Junio, On Thu, 11 Jun 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote: > 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. I heard that concern a couple times. The only reason why I suggested that platform is because we used it last September, and it worked reasonably well. And that really was the only reason. Ciao, Dscho > > > [Reference] > > *1* https://www.ft.com/content/f24bc9c6-ed95-4b31-a011-9e3fcd9cf006 >
