On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 5:04 AM, Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com>wrote:
> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. > On Dec 28, 2011 3:16 AM, "Dave Fisher" <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 27, 2011, at 7:07 PM, Wolf Halton wrote: > > > > > Hi Y'all > > > > > > Would it be better or worse to have "working-group" level IRC channels? > > > E.g. people translating documentation into Urdu will have specific > > > questions that a smaller, more focused group would be good for. People > > > working on developing the website code, etc.. > > > There are already too many mailing lists to keep track of. IMO. I > think > > > it would be helpful to have focused IRC channels for when one is > actually > > > working on a piece of this. I have been helped by such groups in the > past, > > > and felt as if my measly contributions were useful in that setting. I > have > > > been finding it very hard to get my teeth into something on this > project, > > > in its birthing pains, as have a few others, so I have just read as > much as > > > I could and kept my lip zipped. > > > > As long as these are working groups. Just keep in mind that the list will > need to be > > informed of substantive decisions. > > > > So, excellent idea. Let's see if there are any objections. > > IRC is not a good medium for decision making. It requires synchronous > activity which is not realistic in a distributed project. Furthermore it > does not provide an archive and this can leaf to confusion over why a given > direction wad taken. > > It seems strange to say "there are too many mailing lists so let's create > IRC channels instead" (paraphrase). I don't really see how that solves the > problem, in fact it makes it worse. People need to be aware of yet another > communication channel (one which, to use effectively needs are fair bit of > technical know-how) in order to participate fully and thus the community > becomes fractured. Fewer channels with good subjects (and tags) are > generally better for inclusion. > > That being said, some projects do use IRC as a compliment to the mailing > list. They are not official decision making channels. Proposals can be made > and shared with the list. Lazy consensus can still be used and IRC can, in > some communities, be a convenient way of getting some quick feedback, > especially in a targeted group as is bring suggested here. > > However, IRC only works if there are enough people online at any one time, > so the question is really "who would populate it?" > > Ross > > > > > I have avoided doing this myself, but I can see how a group would reduce > the chatter on ooo-dev. > > > > Reading the ooo-issues and ooo-commits MLs is how to watch what is really > happening. (except for the MWiki and Forums.) > > > > Regards, > > Dave > > > > > > > > Wolf > > > > > > -- > > > This Apt Has Super Cow Powers - http://sourcefreedom.com > > > Advancing Libraries Together - http://LYRASIS.org > > > I can certainly see the irony in my suggestion, however I didn't just come up with it out of the blue. The Evergreen-ILS.org project manages to archive their IRC transcripts. Luckily, a lot of the developers on their main channel are in the same time zone - This helps. They do community meetings on IRC as well and these are archived. Evergreen-ILS is a very small project compared to AOO. -- This Apt Has Super Cow Powers - http://sourcefreedom.com Advancing Libraries Together - http://LYRASIS.org
