Re: [Manycouches] DOGFOOD Virtual BoF

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 06:40:26AM +0400, Mukom Akong T. wrote:
> > shared editor that can keep track of
> > what's been concluded.
> this looks like a good requirement.

compared to IMHO the tooling issues in other areas, i think etherpad is
doing pretty well. The main problem IMHO is the logistics discipline to
set up manually some wiki page for some effort in which to collect all
relevant URLs for the effort at hand so that not every participant needs
to bookmark everything and newcomers don't have to beg to figure out how
an efforts toling is structured.

> tech integration between multiple tools is a good requirement at a future
> state. in the beginning and for a small number of people, that discipline
> can be provided with a imple process that we all agree to follow.

See above. One single URL for an effort to remember, rest of logistics
should follow from there. IMHO that means root URL is on a wiki.

> >    Sometimes even when sticking to one tool - say
> > slack - I find that the information that emerges from the discussion is
> > so scattered that it's nearly unusable.
> i use slack extensively at work, we define clearly what needs to
> conversations that happen in slack

Never used slack. Would love to see someone giving a summary of best
practices and what it achieves and what not.

> - if it's a key decision, someone gets an action item to make an entry into
> the team's "Decision Log"  (a wiki page)
> - if it's a set of tasks that need to be done, someone gets an action item
> to create those as tasks in a project management system (JIRA) with a due
> date and assignee
> 
> most "tool problems" are really just a lack of discipline in following a
> pre-agreed upon process.

consumer instead of contributor mentality ;-)
Who can take minutes at a wg meeting.... ;-))

> > I also am loathe to use third-party tools that track my activity, and
> > would not want to see IETF adopt such tools.  So, for instance, google
> > anything is (IMO) not appropriate.
> 
> that's fair and we can use that as a requirement for evaluating different
> tools: "does not track user activity"

How much is an effort willing to pay for or contribute to tools whose
business model is not tracking or advertisement ?

Lets start with creating awareness of the tools business model and judge
later. The interest in not being tracked would IMHO also differ widely
based on what a particular effort is. 

> > We should decide what kind of tools we need rather than insisting on
> > shoehorning our activity into existing tools.   And I'm not aware of an
> > existing tool that would do the job well.
> 
> thank you. this is the thinking behind my suggestion. if we are trying to
> do something different, it _may_ not be possible to use existing tools,
> thinking and processes.

Its always good to have convincing justification to do something new.

Nobody can of course be stopped to reinvent the weel unnecessarily, but
if there are any spare resources for creating something new, it would be
great if those resources could be steered to where the biggest gaps are,
and not just where the most fun in unnecessary repetitious work is.

[
  can we please spend 10x the work for the web-page to re-skin it...
  every 3..4 years..
  and taking the web-page repeatedly down in the process...
  and make it actually worse afterwards...
  except in the eyes of whoever seems to judge how much money our
  company is worth...
]
sorry, couldn't resist. ;-))

Cheers
    Toerless