On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>wrote: > 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. I have to say I agree, the main reason for me joining most of the calls has been so that I don't miss on any decisions that are being made. For me, the mailing list feels like a more productive discussion environment. Cheers, Jussi > -- > Philip Jägenstedt > Core Developer > Opera Software > >
Received on Monday, 21 May 2012 09:11:07 UTC