-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
I meant outreach, not collaborate.
In the case of collaboration I agree with you. Although today we use
webex that does not seem to open to me (at least not more than FB,
Google+ and twitter).
In the case of outreach it does not matter to me if we are using
closed or open applications.
/as
On 25/02/2013 14:52, Brian Trammell wrote:
> Hi, Arturo, all,
>
> It does not seem appropriate for a technical standards organization
> dedicated to making the Internet work better through the
> development of open standards to implicitly endorse "communication
> protocols" which are based on closed access to distributed
> databases through interfaces that can and do change at the whim of
> the organizations that control them, further where those
> organizations have demonstrated a willingness to assert editorial
> control over the content they disseminate.
>
> If a social network were to emerge that allows open participation
> at _every_ level, based on an open application protocol therefor,
> that would be something different. I fear that network effects have
> already made such a thing unlikely in this iteration of "Internet
> x.0".
>
> (Aside: I myself have used all three listed networks to get
> attention for ISOC functions at the chapter level, though I'm
> uneasy about that. I won't dispute that they're great for outreach,
> and when you're doing outreach, you have to go where the people
> are. In my defense, though, I was advertising a talk wherein I
> discussed why it's a bad idea to rely on such closed platforms. :)
> )
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian
>
> On Feb 25, 2013, at 2:21 AM, Arturo Servin <[email protected]>
> 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.
>>
>>
>> as
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On 25 Feb 2013, at 02:21, Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email protected]>
>> 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/
iF4EAREIAAYFAlErC94ACgkQr8mvgVZWPglc7wD/ZpaDDjPL8QYgcZrQH0xX+KD/
WOypj8I57wHOnJcfGNcA/jErGblgtaJuhgde5og6u5SE80bqmJBqcyxXfxUv/WOK
=37Ql
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
