Re: Virtual Inclusion Summit

> Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 07:13:58PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> writes:
> >>
> >> >> It is OK to have an optional meeting in the hope that a video
> >> >> meeting may have a better chance to keep those who easily become too
> >> >> aggressive and confrontational in text-only conversation in check
> >> >> and instead have civilized conversation.
> >> ...
> >> What I am hesitant to see is that such an opt-in meeting becomes
> >> "you got a chance to attend and have your voice heard---if you
> >> didn't come, that was your choice, and whatever objection you give
> >> after it does not count" summit.
> >
> > Ah, thanks for your clarification (and sorry for the misunderstanding).
> > I figure that any synchronous discussion should augment the on-list
> > discussion, not replace it.
>
> By the way, if I sounded like I consider this "virtual summit" to be
> no more than just a place for people with heated head to deflate
> before having a civilized conversation, that was not my intention.
>
> I do agree that it is good to have some gathering (or perhaps a
> couple of them in shifting time to accomodate people from different
> parts of the world) to help make sure everybody is moving towards
> the same goal, and I have nothing against a virtual/video meeting
> for that purpose.
>
> Other than that it may be held on Zoom, where I do not particularly
> like to send people to, after seeing articles like [*1*], that is,
> but there may not be a viable alternative.  I dunno.

>
>
> [Reference]
>
> *1* https://www.ft.com/content/f24bc9c6-ed95-4b31-a011-9e3fcd9cf006
>