Yeah, in case I came across too strong, I think that IRC is very
useful, and voice chat is too. We can have both running for this
meeting, and people can choose where they participate. IRC is great
for async communications, like asking specific questions. But I find
it takes 10-20x longer to work through difficult issues thru text-only
media like IRC, IM, email, etc. as compared to a voice conversation.
.hc
On Mar 16, 2009, at 7:32 PM, João Pais wrote:
Is this a one time thing, or might happen more times? I would say
that at least voice connection would be productive. I haven't that
much experience with video conferencing, but a medium where people
can react at the same time they can think would be important.
(although after too much time, even the fingers are faster than some
heads)How about voice connection for general talk + an irc chat for small,
fast questions? We can also send a group foto with skype, so that
everyone feels the warmth.Marshall McLuhan would strongly disagree with you, as do I. The
medium with which you communicate has a very strong impact on the
conversation. That does not mean that it is the only influence.
There are many things that lead to a bad meeting, and from my
experience of having many meetings in person, on IRC, on IM, on
phones, on voice chat, on video chat, and many different mixes
above, I am a strong believer in high-bandwidth communication like
voice.
Mistrust authority - promote decentralization. - the hacker ethic