Is there any value to having a chat room bolted on here?

[jcustis]

This is a somewhat rhetorical question, but I ask it because I do not recall seeing too much in the way of commentary on how a chat room might support the larger effort of the Council.

Two other boards I frequent make use of a chat room feature, and more popular social networking sites such as Facebook utilize it (although I think it is only point-to-point) to improve communications. There are for sure plenty of times when the room gets bogged down by silly banter, but there are always periods when serious discussion and collaboration occurs

First, is it technically feasible, given the architecture, and second, is it desired?

[motorfirebox]

Regarding feasibility, it would be pretty simple. There are a number of javascript chat clients that can simply be slapped into the main template.

[anonamatic]

It is possible to do group chat on Facebook. Some sort of independent chat might be better suited to the site however. There's some value associated with pseudo-anonymity, as what ends up mattering is what people say when you can't tell if they answer to Fido irl.

[Stan]

Jon,
I see no functional benefit and often think people need time to cool off before spewing. PM gets the job done and permits a little time between time zones ;)

I vote no.

[Steve Blair]

Concur with Stan's reasoning. Chat clients are interesting, of course, but having that "cooling off" period that comes from composing a PM or even refreshing posts can be worthwhile. Also, some places specifically block chat clients. Adding one here might unintentionally limit access.

[Entropy]

I agree with Stan, though I think chat functionality could be useful for virtual meetings, conferences and the like. In other words, chat (or even voice comms) could be great for for virtual events but as a 24/7 function I think it's counterproductive. I know that I wouldn't participate unless it was for an event or some other explicit purpose.

[Rex Brynen]

I worry the whole thing would unmask me not as the Canadian academic you think I am, but rather as a lesbian Syrian blogger (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/13/syrian-lesbian-blogger-tom-macmaster).

[Stan]

Rex,
Having met you, broke bread together, and several beers later... you are a perfect example of a normal male :D

[Steve Blair]

I worry the whole thing would unmask me not as the Canadian academic you think I am, but rather as a lesbian Syrian blogger (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/13/syrian-lesbian-blogger-tom-macmaster).

You mean you're not? But....Stan said....:eek:

[davidbfpo]

Stan,

SWC needs evidence, some photos maybe; yes I know nowadays these can be "doctored".

On the main theme, I do not use chat rooms and would refrain from a vote.

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

Syrian, nor a blogger, but I am a lesbian…albeit presently trapped in a man’s body. :D

[selil]

...commentary on how a chat room might support the larger effort of the Council.

First, is it technically feasible, given the architecture, and second, is it desired?

Yes it is technically feasible. I've done this for a couple very large boards and scaling becomes an issue, and without breakout rooms the scroll can become a blur. One example we had several thousand people in a chat room without moderation.

One site that created a chatroom found that it was heavily used and another website found it was rarely used. One group finally broke away from chatrooms and integrated an IRC server into their network. That worked quite nicely even if I was skeptical.

Now though, and today specifically, chatrooms are becoming passe' A live stream video channel with a scrolling IRC chat for feedback is becoming the standard. For the best example look up the TwitLive (http://live.twit.tv/) stream. I can see doing something similar with weekly or monthly roundtables. If the viewership is there. With this audience that might not be possible.