W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > January 2008

Re: [meta] When and for what to use IRC in telecons?

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:16:32 +0000
Message-Id: <A2855561-3730-440B-8702-EE3C8EDF3254@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>

On 31 Jan 2008, at 14:29, Sandro Hawke wrote:
[snip]
> One bit here is easy: the IRC channel is *not* as important as voice.

This is true during the call, mostly. Obvious exceptions are links,  
proposals, text that was asked for.

IRC stuff does end up in the minutes and can be very useful that way.  
We're all responsible for reviewing the minutes, whether we attended  
the meeting or not.

[snip]
>  That's when I'll type it on IRC, and risk
> being rude and distracting from the speaker....  Mostly I manage  
> not to,
> but there's a difficult balance -- sometimes some IRC chatter can help
> the meeting a lot.

To back that up, I'll say I personally find some "parallel" IRC  
communication/asides to be useful and helps me stay engaged with the  
conversation. (Ok, there are times when it goes off into the weeds,  
but I think that's an extreme.) I've been surprised that Alan (esp.)  
feels the need when chair to respond to every IRC comment that's  
made. If that's what he thinks is required then I'm not surprised  
that he finds it difficult. But I think IRC can be helpful as  
partially parallel, because, frankly, voice conversation is harder  
(have to use the queue, time/focus limitations, etc. etc.) esp. when  
you just want to make a side point, or just want a point to go into  
the minutes for context.

In general, I would expect that if I wanted an IRC point (whether  
mine or someone else's) to be discussed aloud, that I would call  
attention to it by going on the queue.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2008 15:14:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 31 January 2008 15:14:52 GMT