[ciphershed] Re: Mumble voice chat with Jos at 3PM EST

  • From: PID0 <p1dz3r0@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: ciphershed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 19:00:05 +0100

We don't have to get the entire PMC policy framework complete by
Saturday in order to assume the role of spokespeople and chat to Jos.
Any actions/items of importance can be raised on the mailing list by way
of meeting minutes (like how 100% of businesses around the world conduct
meetings) for subsequent discussion until the official decision making
process is agreed.

On 24/06/2014 18:42, Alain Forget wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ciphershed-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ciphershed-
>> bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pid Zero
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 13:31
>> To: ciphershed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [ciphershed] Re: Mumble voice chat with Jos at 3PM EST
>> Nobody is going to compell you install a voice chat app if you have issues 
>> with
>> it. But that doesn't exclude others from using them. It'll always be a game 
>> of
>> catch up (with some missing the prime opportunity to chime in) on the basis
>> that thanks to the 24hr nature of the project, there's always discussion
>> happening.
>> Even when the PMC is created. There's not going to be a situation in which
>> only the people awake during the time when an issue is being discussed get to
>> make a binding decision. The fact that none of those on the PMC-elect live in
>> the same timeline prohibits it. So I wouldn't worry about being left behind.
>> The mailing list is great for having wider discussions with the whole
>> community. But it's not a great place for back & forth dialogue. At least not
>> efficiently. As for transparency, the PMC is the only body capable of making
>> project oriented decisions and it's discussions will be publicly available by
>> design.
>> <Replied from my mobile so please excuse the fat fingering & lack of PGP. I
>> advise that any technical info in this email be subject to external scrutiny>
>> --
>> At the time of writing, no warrants have been served to me, nor am I
>> under any legal compulsion concerning the CipherShed project. I do not
>> know of any searches of seizures of my assets.
>> On Tuesday, June 24, 2014, Stephen R Guglielmo <srguglielmo@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>      On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Bill Cox <waywardgeek@xxxxxxxxx
>> <javascript:;> > wrote:
>>      > Hi. Jos would like to have a Mumble chat with any of us who are
>> interested,
>>      > and is trying to decide when.
>>      I do want to politely voice my opposition to using these "voice chats"
>>      (Skype, Mumble, TeamSpeak) as a means of communication.
>>      I have a few personal issues with it, as well as issues for the
>>      project overall. My personal issues are just that, personal, so
>>      they're not too important. My busy schedule requires me to check my
>>      email at work or elsewhere quite often and voice chats would not be
>>      possible in those cases. I also do not own a microphone or webcam
>> and
>>      have no interest in spending the money to purchase one.
>>      Some other issues I have that aren't so personal are the lack of
>>      logging and transparency in voice chats. We invite people to join us,
>>      yet we use methods which force them to install more software. There
>> is
>>      no public logging/archive of voice chats either. Yes, they can be
>>      recorded and posted as an mp3 somewhere, but that is still not very
>>      practical. If a large decision is made during a voice call that
>>      someone missed, they can be very "out of the loop" and rather
>>      frustrated. I feel as though voice calls quickly eliminates the
>>      participation of a majority people who want to be involved (even if
>>      just observing). It involves software, often proprietary, to be
>>      installed on everyone's systems. It's yet another thing to setup. I
>>      already have 4 different passwords related directly to CipherShed
>> (WP,
>>      forum, wiki, and GitHub). The number of "dependencies" just to stay
>>      involved is increasing.
>> --
>> --
>> At the time of writing, no warrants have ever been served to me, nor am I
>> under any personal legal compulsion concerning the
>> CipherShed project. I do not know of any searches or seizures of my
>> assets.
> I really think being ready by Saturday is really just not possible, between 
> the 72-hour rule and the number of important action items the PMC need to 
> deal with just to get organised, including:
> * private (?) mailing list
> * voting mechanism
> * decide on the PMC chair policy
> * come to a clear/formal/explicit consensus on CipherShed's and the PMC's 
> mandate
> * clearly/explicitly define the QA team's role
> * elect QA team members
> * figure out what needs to be prepped/organised for the influx of 
> contributors we're soon to have
> * other stuff I/we haven't thought of, lost track of, or that we'll discover 
> along the way
> I'd love to hit the ground running and make super-fast progress, but there's 
> just no way I see all this getting done by Saturday, unless the PMC can 
> somehow have an über productive synchronised (e.g., Mumble/TeamSpeak) meeting.
> On the note of voice chat meetings, I agree with Stephen that they should be 
> avoided whenever possible, for the purposes of inclusion and transparency. 
> However, when there are a long list of items that we want to discuss, 
> address, and (hopefully) resolve in a short period of time, they can be a lot 
> faster and efficient than going back and forth over e-mail. However, that 
> speed and efficiency comes at the cost of some transparency and a risk of 
> leaving other out who couldn't make the call. It's a trade-off that I don't 
> have a good answer for.
> If the call with Jos is going to go-ahead, my schedule is relatively 
> flexible, so it's probably easier if you/others suggest times, and if one 
> doesn't work for me, I'll let you know. I'm fine with almost all of the times 
> Jos suggested.
> Alain


At the time of writing, no warrants have been served to me, nor am I
under any legal compulsion concerning the CipherShed project. I do not
know of any searches of seizures of my assets.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Other related posts: