[ipv6-wg] Promote the use of IRC

Niall,

On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 14:58:56 +0100
"Niall O'Reilly" <niall.oreilly at ucd.ie> wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:17:43 +0100,
> 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 #ipv6 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 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.html
> 
>   Specifically: "Put bluntly, if a discussion about any WG matter does
>   not take place on the mailing list, it simply didn't happen."

Every type of communication has benefits and drawbacks. SMS provided
unique ways of communicating and became hugely popular... yet we still
make phone calls and send letters and e-mail and even *talk* to other
humans on rare occasion.


Very little of the IPv6 working group is policy work these days. It
makes sense to have a single place for policy work - it's already
confusing enough on a single mailing list, spreading it any further is
a horrible idea. So, yeah, for policy work adding an extra channel is
icky.

But for non-policy work, I think having a chat room could be nice. It's
qualitatively different.

Even in policy work there is a place for other communication. Often
long, tedious threads where people talk past each other for weeks can
be resolved with a 20 minute phone call. We have face to face meetings
for a reason other than just drinking way too much coffee.


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, 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.

Cheers,

--
Shane