* Niall O'Reilly <niall.oreilly@ucd.ie> [2015-08-12 16:03]:

...

What do you think?

I agree with what Jim Reid posted on another list in response to the same question.

https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2015-August/010523...

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

I agree. When you have something that concerns the WG it should happen on the mailinglist, especially if you want input from other participants. I am on IRC but I'm not reading the channel(s) all the time. Regards Sebastian -- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant

Hi Daniel, I need to speak a little about a working group chair's duties, so I kind of have to wear that hat, but please consider this as a voice in the discussion and not a chair's influence on it. On 12/08/2015 16:17, Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) wrote:

As Im saying in the other lists, im not talking about replacing the list, just complementing it.

Everything that already is done in the list, will be done on the list. But there are things (like discussing this) that can happen in a more real time discussions and if after that, something comes up then is mailed here.

I think my point is very clear and everybody is missunderstanding it but since english is not my best, maybe Im not clear enough as I thought :(

I do believe I understand the intent here. But right now, as co-chair, if I have to make a consensus call, it's very clear to everyone (including me) what has to be done: understand the discussion on the mailing list. Everyone knows that to participate you must be on the list, so we can assume that everyone is present for the discussion. So I believe the problem statement is this: if a policy discussion happens elsewhere than the mailing list, we need to be clear about who is expected (not just invited) to participate, and how that is evaluated in the final discussion. At this moment, if I knew there was a supported venue where policy discussion was taking place, it's not clear to me if I would be expected to chair and monitor the discussion there, and how I should handle a situation where there is consensus in one venue, and disagreement in another. But this is a solveable problem. We do it at RIPE meetings - we take minutes at the meetings, which are published to the list, and frequently remind ourselves that decisions are taken on the list. And if some of us talk about policy amongst ourselves, over dinner say, then we know that as far as the discussion and consensus is concerned, "if we don't take it to the list, it didn't happen." So how would that be solved in the case of a live chat discussion? All the best, Dave -- Dave Wilson, Service Desk Manager web: www.heanet.ie HEAnet Ltd, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 tel: +353-1-660-9040 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 fax: +353-1-660-3666

Hi Benedict, WG, Thus wrote Benedikt Stockebrand (bs@stepladder-it.com): [...]

If we have this IRC channel, and if it turns out that decicion-related discussions start to move there, then *somebody* *must* be there to send them in the proper direction, i.e. to the mailing list. And again, that can't possibly be the job of a WG chair.

In other words, we need somebody to step forward and take on that duty.

From my experience with other organisations that work through mailing

Unrealistic. Even if you had someone whose job it was to monitor the channel, they can hardly be expected to be even awake 24x7. 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. [...]

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) regards, spz -- spz@serpens.de (S.P.Zeidler)

Hi again... "Niall O'Reilly" <niall.oreilly@ucd.ie> writes:

I agree with what Jim Reid posted on another list in response to the same question.

https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2015-August/010523...

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

now that was on the address policy WG list, which is pretty much diametrically opposite in nature to the IPv6 WG since it is all about policy, while the IPv6 WG isn't about policy at all. But Jims general reasoning is perfectly right. It's already difficult enough to keep things in the proper channel: So far we've had one discussion on AP WG list on disbanding the IPv6 WG list, and somehow I've got the feeling that this discussion started on the RIPE *NCC* members list while it concerns a RIPE (*non-NCC*) WG. It may be reasonable to have a "more realtime" channel for questions that aren't exactly relevant to the WG as such, like "Is it OK to use a /96 subnet prefix?"[1], but if this leads to making it impossible to keep track of the discussions on a topic in their entirety, then we'll have a real problem, because we'll have to sort out all kinds of misunderstandings and whatnot at the RIPE meetings. Cheers, Benedikt [1] See RFC 4291, Section 2.5.1, third paragraph... -- 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/

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 10:55:04 +0100, Shane Kerr wrote:

Niall,

[...]

I have run software teams that used chat rooms for discussion, even with the developers scattered across 5 or 6 time zones. Our rule was that any "official" discussions happened on-list and all decisions were made there,

I think such a rule needs to be very clearly understood. I didn't see anything like this in Daniel's start-of-thread message. Since then, he has clarified what he has in mind. On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:17:10 +0100, Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) wrote:

As Im saying in the other lists, im not talking about replacing the list, just complementing it.

Good. On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 10:55:04 +0100, Shane Kerr wrote:

but it was often handy to be able to talk to people in real time. So it is possible to add chat rooms to the mix while still keeping a single place for official discussions.

I'm not a strong advocate for IRC or any real-time technology for the IPv6 working group, but I also don't see any reason to be opposed to it.

I'm reassured. Thanks. ATB, Niall

Hi, i agree with Benedikt. Not everybody has the time to hang around in the IRC channel and at least there will be much more unnecessary stuff which you have to filter out..is it important? is it not important? And at least somebody of the WG has to filter the important stuff which means much more work for this guy(s). I think one place for policy discussions is enough and the mailinglist is the better place for it than an IRC channel. Except for that an IRC channel for general IPv6 discussions, questions etc. is a good thing but not for policy discussions. Have a nice evening, Andi Am 12.08.15 um 20:02 schrieb Benedikt Stockebrand:

Hi Daniel and list,

"Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT)" <d.baeza@tvt-datos.es> writes:

...

Yesterday, I've started a discussion in the member list about exactly which list are you writing 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. Hmm, from what I've seen in the community here, that doesn't really mean much. If people don't respond it can mean they agree (and wait for a consensus call to keep the noise down) and it can also mean they consider the idea a complete waste of time (and wait for a consensus call to keep the noise down).

The problem I see with discussions per IRC is that a lot of us work in the kind of job where we can't keep hanging around in the IRC; or put bluntly, every once in a while I find it impossible to ensure I catch up on the list every evening. So moving discussions and possibly even decision making to the IRC will effectively keep people like me out of that discussion.

...

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

For this list, an #ipv6 channel will be created and administrated by the WG Chairs. Hmm, have Dave and/or Jen agreed to take care of that job? If so, then fine, but I can't possibly take on that job myself. And I'm most definitely not spending time on trying to catch up with discussions by reading whatever transcripts every night or so.

Which leads to another problem: While there are a lot of people who write e-mails faster than they think, those people are reasonably rare in this community; but IRC leads to much more noise, which adds a lot of unnecessary work.

Cheers,

Benedikt

-- Mit freundlichem Gruß Artfiles New Media GmbH Andreas Worbs Artfiles New Media GmbH | Zirkusweg 1 | 20359 Hamburg Tel: 040 - 32 02 72 90 | Fax: 040 - 32 02 72 95 E-Mail: support@artfiles.de | Web: http://www.artfiles.de Geschäftsführer: Harald Oltmanns | Tim Evers Eingetragen im Handelsregister Hamburg - HRB 81478

Jen, You read into my mind... Exactly the same concerns: practicalities & fragmentation

If people would like to have a place to informal chat nobody could prevent them. However I have a few concerns. In particular, segmentation of the information. IRC would one more communication channel to track (and it is not the best one if you would like to find out what happened while you've been on vacation, for example). We do not have so much traffic on ipv6 mailing list so I do not see a use case for offloading informal discussions to IRC channel to increase signal/noise ratio.

If someone would like to have an informal chat about IPv6 @irc - there are IPv6-related channels around so I'm inclined to use Occam's razor here ;)