Re: Virtual Inclusion Summit

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jun 11, 2020, 15:25 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqh7vhbp5h.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200611023503.GA24130@syl.local>

Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> writes:

Show 16 quoted lines

> 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