| 1 |
> |
| 2 |
> I think that summarizing "IRC" is insane. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
and there is no need for it either. as stated elsewhere much of what is |
| 5 |
going on on IRC is 'goofing off' - for which IRC is excellent. (heck - i |
| 6 |
should goof off more often :-) |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
i dont mind the day-to-day work stuff going on on IRC exclusively - but |
| 9 |
when discussions about the future directions of a project and the decision |
| 10 |
making process are held on IRC exclusively, then that is not helpful in |
| 11 |
attracting new blood. for one because there is no history but also because |
| 12 |
they may not use IRC that much. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> Remember we barely got |
| 15 |
> summaries of council meetings (which are at a fixed time and date) |
| 16 |
> until we got a secretary devoted explicitly to that task. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> Maybe more |
| 19 |
> teams should take up the meeting model; that way non-IRC folks can |
| 20 |
> either be on IRC for meeting times only, or peruse the meeting notes |
| 21 |
> afterwards if they are interested in what happened. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
yeah - the kde team is leading the way here. granted - this model may not |
| 24 |
work for everybody... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
regards |
| 27 |
Thilo |
Archives