Re: Draft of Proposal for the GNOME Foundation.

[jg pa dec com (Jim Gettys)]

> I think requiring all discussion to go via electronic means is a
> non-solution; the phone call has really been invaluable for improving
> communication IMHO. We can certainly require that all decisions are
> discussed on a public list, but we can't require that they are _only_
> discussed there. If we do, people will just have their own informal
> phone calls. Also of course, email and IRC are almost certainly less
> secure than a phone call.
> 

My point was that when decisions are made / "rough concensus" is being 
reached that affect large fractions of the community, the only way to 
reach this is to go to mailing lists, or you risk alienating the community 
(and also run afoul of legal complications).

This is not to say that phone calls cannot take place, or straw polls
in meetings be taken when appropriate, just that hallway, telephone,
or meeting conversations are by themselves inadaquate to get to "rough
consensus" with a community which is world wide.  I certainly am not
saying all discussion must be electronic: this is completely unrealistic,
and you are correct to say so.  Phone calls can be very productive: I
held a weekly one for HTTP/1.1 for quite a while (and maintained a public
issues list and minutes).

There are certainly conversations that occur in the IAB/IESG meetings
that are private (and those bodies certainly have private teleconferences
on monthly/every two week schedules that are private, but with public minutes
published): but the ratification process for decisions needs to take
into account those who cannot be physically present.  This is why, for
example, IAB/IESG policy matters are circulated as Internet drafts before
adoption.
				- Jim


--
Jim Gettys
Technology and Corporate Development
Compaq Computer Corporation
jg@pa.dec.com