Fred,
On 25/02/2013 07:05, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> I'm of two opinions here. One, I agree with Marc that the
> case has not been made for the use of proprietary
> technologies such as you mention; we actually do pretty well,
> and the ultimate issue is about effective communication with
> all of the relevant participants, not with those few that use
> a given social networking service
Exactly. The inter-personal communication toolset we use in the
IETF is quite limited because of some unwritten constraints,
which certainly include:
- very widely available, including free or open source solutions
- operating-system independent
- standardised, non-proprietary
- not unduly plagued by advertising
- preferably, standardised by the IETF itself
- most tools allow time-shifting for worldwide collaboration
- reasonably secure
- do not damage privacy but do not encourage anonymity
I think we have to be very careful going outside that set
of constraints (which is why I'm not a big fan of Webex or for
that matter Meetecho).
...
> Arturo, my suggestion: in some context, after discussion with
> the working-group-or-whatever-in-question, use one of the
> tools you mention to accomplish IETF work. Take careful notes
> of what proportion of the indicated community (if the IPv6
> Operations WG, for example, the participants in v6ops) join
> the discussions, and what contribution those discussions
> make. Think about archives,
s/archives/public archives/
focused issue discussion (what
> SMTP readers call "threads"), and so on. Then write a draft
> documenting the outcome of that.
Yes
Brian