Re: IRC debate feedback
Marc Haber <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 01:44:45PM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
>> I found the first hour basically wasted time - the strength of IRC is that
>> it's real-time, while the form of the first hour of debate did not really
>> use that, instead showing the weaknesses of IRC when text needs to be
>> copied & pasted around :-) The 'Questions for the Candidates' emails on
>> -vote, together with a summary like <http://debian.edv-bus.at/vote-2005/>
>> (thanks to David for doing this!) is much better suited for this.
> Maybe something Web- or Wiki-Based would be good for this, as mailing
> list discussions tend to get more verbose than intended.
> The strength of the first hour was that all information became
> available at once which made it much easier to follow than a mailing
> list discussion.
I also liked the second part better. I could imagine a compromise in
the middle of both schemes, for something to replace the first part; I
don't know whether this is technically manageable, though. My
suggestion is that only one person is allowed to speak (i.e., type and
press enter) at a time. After he/she has finished, the moderator(s)
hand the word over to the next person. But everybody can react on what
anybody else said previously (we'll notice if someone ignores the other
candidates and only answers the moderator, or only engages in disputes
with candidates, ignoring when the moderators try to steer the talks
somewhere else). Every candidate would have to raise their hands in
order to get the word, or could choose not to speak up at a certain
point. The moderators would ensure all candidates get approximately
equal shares of time (or of turns, don't know).
This would avoid that two or three lines of thought are totally mixed
without even saying that one is talking about something different (like
# <martin_krafft> let's move on... [23:43]
# <martin_krafft> It is probably safe to say that the results of the Vancouver meeting [23:43]
# <martin_krafft> stirred the community up quite a bit. What could have been done [23:43]
# <martin_krafft> better to prevent such turbulences and potential loss of [23:43]
# <martin_krafft> productivity? [23:44]
# <BrandenRobinson> martin_krafft: nice segue from my previous remark :) [23:44]
# <JonathanWalther> martin_krafft: I don't see any loss of
productivity. The Vancouver meeting was a necessary bit of quiet time
for the release managers to get together without distraction. [23:44]
# <AngusLees> martin_krafft: it seems the meeting was arranged hurriedly
for some reason. i think there was no need for such haste (the DPL
# <JonathanWalther> martin_krafft: again, I fully support the right to
freedom of association. [23:44]
# <AndreasSchuldei> martin_krafft: then the group should try to find new
members, in an active way. [23:44]
# <AnthonyTowns> martin_krafft: Obviously, I like the idea of cutting
off the flamewar where it starts to get nasty, non-technical or overly
repetitive. :-/ [23:44]
AnthonyTowns and Andreas Schuldei, maybe even JonathanWalther in his
second sentence, clearly address older questions of Martin, and
everybody different ones.
Candidates could still say "I agree with what A said previously, but...;
to your new question, $moderator, I say that ...; As a new topic, I
think X is very important, and ..", but it would be much clearer.
Thanks to Helen and Madduck!
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich