+1 on on everything that Jim just said. You're welcome to discuss any policy anywhere - in a pub, on IRC, on Facebook, other industry events, you name it - (and I know almost all of you do) but as long as it's not on the mailing list, it doesn't count for the policy development process.
Also I'd like to echo the sentiment that it's yet another communications channel that I'd need to keep track of - I don't know where any of you finds the time to do so but I certainly don't have it.
Best regards
Remco
(no hats)
On 12 Aug 2015, at 13:44, Carsten Schiefner <ripe-wgs.cs@schiefner.de> wrote:
> I would not go so far and call this a bad idea
So I will. :-) It's a bad idea. A Very Bad Idea.
> - but I am not at all easy about it either.
Me too!
> Random (sub) groupings of whatever kind can and should most certainly be
> free to use whatever means of communication they see fit - but address
> policy stuff must IMHO stay on this mailing list. And only there!
+100.
The mailing list is supreme. We simply cannot have any confusion/ambiguity about how to make policy or which fora or tools are appropriate.
I also do not like the idea of discussions about WG matters taking place behind (sort of) closed doors, for instance in a chat room or whatever which excludes those who cannot or will not have access to some IRC client. This would be the start of a very slippery and dangerous slope: policy development by twitter or facebook or dropbox or...
If people want to use IRC or the latest flavour-of-the week Web2.0 fad, they are of course free to do so. But it must be clear to everyone doing this that whatever WG business gets discussed there has no significance of any sort until it comes to the mailing list.
> I for sure will not open yet another ingress channel I then would need to
> monitor.
+100. Put bluntly, if a discussion about any WG matter does not take place on the mailing list, it simply didn't happen.