[ciphershed] Re: Mumble voice chat with Jos at 3PM EST
- From: "Alain Forget" <aforget@xxxxxxx>
- To: <ciphershed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 14:07:19 -0400
Agreed, although I think we should hold off on Jos funnelling the 100+ recruits
our way until the PMC is comfortable with the structure, mandate, policies, and
so on.
Alain
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ciphershed-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ciphershed-
>bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of PID0
>Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 14:00
>To: ciphershed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [ciphershed] Re: Mumble voice chat with Jos at 3PM EST
>
>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.
Other related posts:
