-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 I meant outreach, not collaborate. In the case of collaboration I agree with you. Although today we use webex that does not seem to open to me (at least not more than FB, Google+ and twitter). In the case of outreach it does not matter to me if we are using closed or open applications. /as On 25/02/2013 14:52, Brian Trammell wrote: > Hi, Arturo, all, > > It does not seem appropriate for a technical standards organization > dedicated to making the Internet work better through the > development of open standards to implicitly endorse "communication > protocols" which are based on closed access to distributed > databases through interfaces that can and do change at the whim of > the organizations that control them, further where those > organizations have demonstrated a willingness to assert editorial > control over the content they disseminate. > > If a social network were to emerge that allows open participation > at _every_ level, based on an open application protocol therefor, > that would be something different. I fear that network effects have > already made such a thing unlikely in this iteration of "Internet > x.0". > > (Aside: I myself have used all three listed networks to get > attention for ISOC functions at the chapter level, though I'm > uneasy about that. I won't dispute that they're great for outreach, > and when you're doing outreach, you have to go where the people > are. In my defense, though, I was advertising a talk wherein I > discussed why it's a bad idea to rely on such closed platforms. :) > ) > > Cheers, > > Brian > > On Feb 25, 2013, at 2:21 AM, Arturo Servin <aservin@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > >> >> Why not? >> >> I, my organization and many more (included ISOC) have found them >> very useful for outreach activities. I do not see why the IETF >> shouldn't. Please, tell me. >> >> >> as >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On 25 Feb 2013, at 02:21, Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@xxxxxxx> >> wrote: >> > On 02/23/2013 07:38 PM, Arturo Servin wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Very good initiative. >>>>> >>>>> Twitter, Google+, Facebook, etc. could be the next steps. >>>>> Let's embrace new tools to collaborate. > > Let's not. Collaboration based on software running on servers run > by the IETF or a contractor payed by the IETF is fine. Using > collaboration tools owned by the entities you listed, or similar > entities, is not. > >>>>> >>>>> Regards, as >>>>> >>>>> On 22/02/2013 20:35, IETF Chair wrote: >>>>>> Jari has created a blog as an experiment to see if would >>>>>> be possible to provide periodic status reports and other >>>>>> thoughts from the chair. Here's the link: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/blog/2013/02/chairs-blog/ > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iF4EAREIAAYFAlErC94ACgkQr8mvgVZWPglc7wD/ZpaDDjPL8QYgcZrQH0xX+KD/ WOypj8I57wHOnJcfGNcA/jErGblgtaJuhgde5og6u5SE80bqmJBqcyxXfxUv/WOK =37Ql -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----