I think it's important to recognize how the board and the foundation have handled this issue over time.
The absolute requirement is open decision-making. Avoiding real-time communications avoids many possible failures of open decision-making. (Not, of course, all.) After all, the simplest primrose path here is two people standing at the intersection of their cubicles. The policy has always been to sternly warn that the use of real time mechanisms involves risks of failure, and that failure involves risks of the board's blunt instruments being deployed. Does all of this slow down some processes, and cause some people of limited patience / boundless energy to get frustrated? Yup, things have costs. Just writing up the results on the mailing list isn't good enough if there is no real opportunity for people to question, deliberate, and change the course of action. You want to have a bar camp, a con call, a slack discussion, a set of messages exchanged by carrier pigeon? Then it's up to you to make sure that you don't end up excluding people from the decision-making process.
