- From: Dailey, David P. <david.dailey@sru.edu>
- Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 00:16:18 -0400
- To: "Daniel Glazman" <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: <public-html@w3.org>
I agree with Daniel on this for somewhat different reasons. At my age, I find the pace of IRC's dizzying. Wednesday was the first time in my life I ever tried it professionally, and my impromptu installation of freeware as well as experimenting with Opera's IRC protocol was unsuccessful. There are some alternative approaches to IRC that might be a bit more friendly to us older folks. The Image and Meaning group is experimenting with some stuff at the moment. DD ________________________________ From: public-html-request@w3.org on behalf of Daniel Glazman Sent: Thu 3/22/2007 10:05 PM To: Dan Connolly Cc: public-html@w3.org Subject: Re: toward an issues list/agenda for the HTML WG On 22/03/2007 22:22, Dan Connolly wrote: > In this group, the participants don't sign up for weekly > teleconferences when we join the group, but as chair, I still > need some sort of regular sync point, so I'm likely > to do the IRC-office-hours thing periodically... maybe > every week, maybe every other week. I do intend to call > teleconferences some weeks. I might try that next week. I would like to be very clear that IRC cannot fully replace conf calls : during a one hour mandatory conf call as it happens in other WG, people present who don't object to decisions agree with them. Here, because of time shift, your IRC office hours have only little overlap with mine for instance, and I cannot consider I agree with something I just did not have the opportunity to discuss, only because your days are my nights... See the problem, I suppose ? IRC is easy to use, helpful, but that's only a tool for brainstorm if you don't use it as a 1 hour conf tool and I respectfully suggest we keep it far below the radar compared to the mailing-list. </Daniel>
Received on Friday, 23 March 2007 04:33:08 UTC