On 12 Aug 2015, at 13:44, Carsten Schiefner <ripe-wgs.cs@schiefner.de> wrote:

I would not go so far and call this a bad idea

So I will. :-) It's a bad idea. A Very Bad Idea.

- but I am not at all easy about it either.

Me too!

Random (sub) groupings of whatever kind can and should most certainly be free to use whatever means of communication they see fit - but address policy stuff must IMHO stay on this mailing list. And only there!

+100. The mailing list is supreme. We simply cannot have any confusion/ambiguity about how to make policy or which fora or tools are appropriate. I also do not like the idea of discussions about WG matters taking place behind (sort of) closed doors, for instance in a chat room or whatever which excludes those who cannot or will not have access to some IRC client. This would be the start of a very slippery and dangerous slope: policy development by twitter or facebook or dropbox or... If people want to use IRC or the latest flavour-of-the week Web2.0 fad, they are of course free to do so. But it must be clear to everyone doing this that whatever WG business gets discussed there has no significance of any sort until it comes to the mailing list.

I for sure will not open yet another ingress channel I then would need to monitor.

+100. Put bluntly, if a discussion about any WG matter does not take place on the mailing list, it simply didn't happen.

Dear all, I can only agree with Jim and Remco. Let's keep the mailing list as an authoritative way to discuss the matters of any working group (not only Address Policy). Best regards, Janos 2015.08.12. 15:24 keltezéssel, remco van mook írta:

+1 on on everything that Jim just said. You're welcome to discuss any policy anywhere - in a pub, on IRC, on Facebook, other industry events, you name it - (and I know almost all of you do) but as long as it's not on the mailing list, it doesn't count for the policy development process.

Also I'd like to echo the sentiment that it's yet another communications channel that I'd need to keep track of - I don't know where any of you finds the time to do so but I certainly don't have it.

Best regards

Remco (no hats)

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 3:17 PM Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com <mailto:jim@rfc1035.com>> wrote:

On 12 Aug 2015, at 13:44, Carsten Schiefner <ripe-wgs.cs@schiefner.de <mailto:ripe-wgs.cs@schiefner.de>> wrote:

> I would not go so far and call this a bad idea

So I will. :-) It's a bad idea. A Very Bad Idea.

> - but I am not at all easy about it either.

Me too!

> Random (sub) groupings of whatever kind can and should most certainly be > free to use whatever means of communication they see fit - but address > policy stuff must IMHO stay on this mailing list. And only there!

+100.

The mailing list is supreme. We simply cannot have any confusion/ambiguity about how to make policy or which fora or tools are appropriate.

I also do not like the idea of discussions about WG matters taking place behind (sort of) closed doors, for instance in a chat room or whatever which excludes those who cannot or will not have access to some IRC client. This would be the start of a very slippery and dangerous slope: policy development by twitter or facebook or dropbox or...

If people want to use IRC or the latest flavour-of-the week Web2.0 fad, they are of course free to do so. But it must be clear to everyone doing this that whatever WG business gets discussed there has no significance of any sort until it comes to the mailing list.

> I for sure will not open yet another ingress channel I then would need to > monitor.

+100. Put bluntly, if a discussion about any WG matter does not take place on the mailing list, it simply didn't happen.

Hi,

Op 12 aug. 2015, om 15:24 heeft remco van mook <remco.vanmook@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:

+1 on on everything that Jim just said. You're welcome to discuss any policy anywhere - in a pub, on IRC, on Facebook, other industry events, you name it - (and I know almost all of you do) but as long as it's not on the mailing list, it doesn't count for the policy development process.

Yep, that is how it is going to be. And any argument that sounds like "But on IRC <somebody> has said XYZ" will be ignored until that somebody posts his/her opinion on the mailing list. I am not going to keep IRC logs and search through them when somebody refers to an IRC discussion. In this working group *individuals* discuss address policy. Statements on behalf of groups, organisations, companies or some other person on IRC are not taken into account in policy discussions. Only statements made by real people themselves are taken into account :)

Also I'd like to echo the sentiment that it's yet another communications channel that I'd need to keep track of - I don't know where any of you finds the time to do so but I certainly don't have it.

Yep. I have trouble enough as it is judging consensus based on mailing list data. Adding more sources of data can make my work as working group chair close to impossible. Cheers! Sander

On 2015-08-13 09:15, Garry Glendown wrote: [...]

IRC has its uses,

Indeed, like for "real time stuff" and information which is *not* relevant for a longer time and/or doesn't benefit from having a trail or log or documentation.

but for anything coming even close to be used for official use,

IMHO there isn't such a thing as "official use", or "close to", as (usually) there's no trail or documentation. And, while I certainly would be the last one to prevent people from flocking together and chatting, or even professionally discussing issues, physically or in cyber-space, I do see the danger of *not* having the relevant contributions *again* on the mailing list, and thus by design also in the archive for later review. For that reason I am *against* "promoting" the use of IRC as a WG-affiliated or endorsed tool. Wilfried

it's useless ... I wouldn't want to set up a server/client to stay constantly connected, logging 99% junk just to keep up with anything that MAY come up that's important ... could you imagine the turmoil around 2015-1 if IRC had been used for part of the official discussion?

-garry

+1 for Carsten's opinion I also prefer this mailing-list for AP discussions. Regards, Carsten Brückner -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Carsten Schiefner Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12. August 2015 14:45 An: Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Working Group Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] Promote the use of IRC Daniel, all - On 12.08.2015 14:16, Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) wrote:

Yesterday, I've started a discussion in the member list about promoting the use of IRC instead of Mail List for some kind of discussions, chit chat, etc.

Not much members answered, but all who did said yes.

The goal is to have, at least, one channel per mail list, but not limited to only that.

For this list, an #address-policy channel will be created and administrated by the WG Chairs.

We want to use the actual RIPE IRC Server plus Network Services and some more irc servers linked to the Ripe one.

What do you think?

I would not go so far and call this a bad idea - but I am not at all easy about it either. Random (sub) groupings of whatever kind can and should most certainly be free to use whatever means of communication they see fit - but address policy stuff must IMHO stay on this mailing list. And only there! I for sure will not open yet another ingress channel I then would need to monitor. Cheers, -C.

Hello,

random sub-groups sitting together in a smoke-filled room, one or two or the other IRC channels, and throwing around ideas before bringing up something formal is a good thing - as long as it's clearly understood that this is informal.

+1 While no one wants this to snowball into multiple chat channels impossible to keep abreast of, I also think it's good to have a forum for informal chat. But I would urge minimalizing, say one sub-channel per WG. Regards, James -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering Sent: 12 August 2015 15:46 To: Carsten Schiefner Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Working Group Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Promote the use of IRC Hi, On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 02:44:30PM +0200, Carsten Schiefner wrote:

Random (sub) groupings of whatever kind can and should most certainly be free to use whatever means of communication they see fit - but address policy stuff must IMHO stay on this mailing list. And only there!

Emphasis on "what is not on this list has not happened" as far as formal(!) policy-making goes. OTOH, random sub-groups sitting together in a smoke-filled room, one or two or the other IRC channels, and throwing around ideas before bringing up something formal is a good thing - as long as it's clearly understood that this is informal. Gert Doering -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

On 12 Aug 2015, at 15:46, Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) <d.baeza@tvt-datos.es> wrote:

If enough people join, it can be an official communication channel.

No. It can *never* be an official communication channel (whatever you mean by that). The only communication that matters for WG business is the mailing list. Everything else is just noise.

On 08/12/2015 04:57 PM, Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) wrote:

El 12/08/2015 a las 16:53, Jim Reid escribió:

...

No. It can *never* be an official communication channel (whatever you mean by that).

The only communication that matters for WG business is the mailing list. Everything else is just noise.

It can be *just official noise* :)

Indeed, can we please stop the noise on the mailinglist. There are enough NOG/Ops channels around on IRC.

El 12/08/2015 a las 17:06, Janos Zsako escribió:

I am afraid I do not understand what you mean by "official noise".

I think Jim's approach that "if a discussion about any WG matter does not take place on the mailing list, it simply didn't happen" is the correct one.

Therefore, everybody is free to chat on IRC, but even if the number of participants is very high, all that is said there is "unofficial", as long as the ideas are not presented on the list as well. I have no objection to the setting up IRC if the above is accepted and respected by all participants.

Best regards, Janos

Hi Janos, I will say it again, IRC is not replacing the list. IRC is complementing it. With official, I mean something like "RIPE Seal of Approval". In IRC PDP will not happens, but *can be* a good place to cook ideas. It will be as official as we want it to be, but again, it will never replace the Mailing List.

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 05:12:56PM +0200, Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) wrote: [snip]

I will say it again, IRC is not replacing the list. IRC is complementing it. With official, I mean something like "RIPE Seal of Approval". In IRC PDP will not happens, but *can be* a good place to cook ideas. It will be as official as we want it to be, but again, it will never replace the Mailing List.

If you're seeking WG "approval" for an informal channel, I'm as confused as the rest of them. I can't speak for the WG chairs, but my read is "no"/ As for the RIPEIRC -- just use it! Loads of folks attach to those servers 'early' (before the meetings) and chatter tapers off sometimes days after. Cheers, Joe -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / CotSG / Usenix / NANOG