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