-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Yes, I correct, I meant to outreach and not collaborate.
If it were to collaborate, an ietf application with open standards
should be the way forward.
For outreach my opinion is that does not matter.
Regards,
as
On 25/02/2013 14:52, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
> On 02/24/2013 05:21 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>
>> Why not?
>
>> I, my organization and many more (included ISOC) have found them
>> very useful for outreach activities. I do not see why the IETF
>> shouldn't. Please, tell me.
>
> You said collaborate below, now you are saying outreach. What I
> said was specifically about collaboration.
>
>
>
>> as
>
>> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On 25 Feb 2013, at 02:21, Marc Petit-Huguenin <petit...@acm.org>
>> wrote:
>
>> On 02/23/2013 07:38 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Very good initiative.
>>>>>
>>>>> Twitter, Google+, Facebook, etc. could be the next steps.
>>>>> Let's embrace new tools to collaborate.
>
>> Let's not. Collaboration based on software running on servers
>> run by the IETF or a contractor payed by the IETF is fine. Using
>> collaboration tools owned by the entities you listed, or similar
>> entities, is not.
>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards, as
>>>>>
>>>>> On 22/02/2013 20:35, IETF Chair wrote:
>>>>>> Jari has created a blog as an experiment to see if would
>>>>>> be possible to provide periodic status reports and other
>>>>>> thoughts from the chair. Here's the link:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/blog/2013/02/chairs-blog/
>
>
>
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iF4EAREIAAYFAlErCx8ACgkQr8mvgVZWPgmfCQD/dupspw+Jh/PB7E+wHEALBSyJ
EOJA8t63U+NkFZgv7GcA/jwXf6NQuPajpCGiERB/zsqJJiy3jurIIC17Ofv1/yZM
=N8V+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
