Hi spz and list, "S.P.Zeidler" <spz@serpens.de> writes:
In other words, we need somebody to step forward and take on that duty.
Unrealistic. Even if you had someone whose job it was to monitor the channel, they can hardly be expected to be even awake 24x7.
Exactly, and just the same for three WG chairs. So if we don't find anybody (anybodies???) to take care of that, then setting up an "official" RIPE IPv6 IRC channel is rather likely to render the decision making process in the WG useless.
From my experience with other organisations that work through mailing lists and also have chat venues, treating the chat(s) as equivalent to "we were chatting over dinner", i.e. as slightly more refined discussion starts on the binding communication channel, is the only thing that works.
That's the point: We need to make sure that this understanding is well established, and especially so when an informal discussion turns to something relevant to the list; for that we need somebody to tell people "please move this over to the mailing list" at some point. Otherwise we wind up with situations I've seen elsewhere: "We don't need to discuss it here yet again, we've done so {over dinner and a beer last night|in another mailing list|in the IRC channel|...}". And I've seen that elsewhere and know from first-hand experience that is dedicedly counterproductive.
If we establish that IRC channel, then we must find a way---and the resources---to ensure this.
Eh, preventing people from talking to each other is hard, especially if they all have Internet. :) (Never mind the occasional barbeque)
I don't want people to prevent from talking, but I want to make sure that people who are interested in participating in a discussion actually get a chance to do so, and without excessive waste of time. Cheers, Benedikt -- Benedikt Stockebrand, Stepladder IT Training+Consulting Dipl.-Inform. http://www.stepladder-it.com/ Business Grade IPv6 --- Consulting, Training, Projects BIVBlog---Benedikt's IT Video Blog: http://www.stepladder-it.com/bivblog/