- From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 10:56:51 +0200
- To: "Chris Wilson" <cwilso@google.com>, "olivier Thereaux" <olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk>
- Cc: robert@ocallahan.org, "Alistair MacDonald" <al@signedon.com>, public-audio@w3.org
On Mon, 21 May 2012 10:39:18 +0200, olivier Thereaux <olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk> wrote: > > On 16 May 2012, at 21:36, Chris Wilson wrote: > >> By contrast, I generally find group telecons to be an effective tool >> for keeping a rhythm going to a WG's work. > > Ditto. > > I very much agree with Robert's suggestion that we should use any > appropriate modes of communication to discuss issues between > individuals, and ad-hoc, focussed teleconferences are part of that > toolbox, as are discussions on our IRC channel, mailing-lists, issue > trackers and so on. > > That said, our weekly group teleconferences have so far been the best > way for us to keep a work rhythm, assign work among ourselves and reach > group resolutions. I see no reason to stop holding them. Have decisions been made in the teleconferences or via email so far? I obviously don't mind that people communicate in the medium that they prefer, but if the actual decisions are made in the teleconferences, then participation is in effect mandatory. My preference is for decisions to be made by a call for consensus on the mailing list, which also has the positive side effect of leaving a paper trail. -- Philip Jägenstedt Core Developer Opera Software
Received on Monday, 21 May 2012 08:57:18 UTC