[IAEP] Why #sugar should be logged - a plug for transparency and ease of use.
simon at schampijer.de
Wed Jan 13 03:08:12 EST 2010
On 01/13/2010 03:25 AM, Jeff Elkner wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Dave Bauer<dave.bauer at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Apparenly it was discussed. Some people do not like publicly available logs.
>> I log all my IRC channels locally. This is handy because I can use desktop
>> search to find something. I can't point someone else to them, but I suppose
>> I could email part of it to someone.
> I'm glad logging locally works for you, Dave, but it doesn't work for
> me. I really need less things to do, not more ;-)
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Luke Faraone<luke at faraone.cc> wrote:
>>> Is there a good reason why we don't auto log the channel?
>> We've talked this subject practically to death.
>> See http://firstname.lastname@example.org/msg06656.html.
>> (hint: the thread you want is here)
>> Consensus has been "no" for a variety of reasons, which would be redundant
>> to enumerate here once again.
>> We already log meetings in #sugar-meeting, but the policy for #sugar is
>> against it.
> Can I just use #sugar-meeting, then, instead of #sugar? That would work for me.
If someone needs to log and skim all the conversations in #sugar to be
up to date with the important bits of the project, we failed in
providing good communication channels. That would be like installing a
microphone at the coffee machine in a company ;D
You should identify which parts of information you are interested in.
For meetings there should be minutes and logs. And a more high level
approach is Walter's Sugar Digest. There are some thoughts about this
topic in the recent thread "dealing with mailing lists" on iaep, maybe
you can share your concerns there. And maybe explain which information
you are interested in (dev, teaching...).
More information about the IAEP