--On Friday, January 8, 2021 14:04 +0100 Eliot Lear
<lear=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>...
> I have a bit of sympathy with Joel on not wanting to bifurcate
> conversations. It's not a matter of gray hair to me, but
> simply a matter of wanting to participate in formative
> discussions. If they're not happening on email, then one
> needs to know where they are happening, and be able to get in
> the game. I don't think there's a perfect solve for that,
> but it seems to me that the concern is somewhat obviated if
> WGs virtually meet often. There is, of course, a convenience
> tradeoff there...
>...
Eliot, it isn't just convenience. More virtual meetings means
more timezone problems and some people being excluded from the
discussions even if only on a rotating basis. And, however good
the minutes or ability to play back recorded video, it is not as
good as being able to make comments or insert an issue or
perspective while the meeting is going on... and the topic might
get lost by the next meeting. So, whether by email, github,
or something else (a separate topic and taking up most of the
thread), mechanisms that allow input to be provided and
discussed asynchronously [1] tend to work out better for
high-quality participation of consideration of issues than many
/ frequent interim meetings.
john
[1] Personally, although it might be a consequence of the color
and diminishing quantity of my hair, I continue to find github
much harder to follow it I am not watching an issue continuously
than email although email can get difficult too when the
discussion occurs as this thread has.
