On 11/28/12 4:45 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 11/28/12 2:45 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
ps. I'll repeat that I think f2f needs to be essentially irrelevant
to the assessment of wg consensus, except perhaps as an efficiency
hack that permits more terse exchanges on the mailing list.
That's a separate topic, but I tend to disagree. Why the heck even
have meetings? And I concur with Marc Blanchet that some WGs really
gel and make good progress in person but don't have great threads on
the mailing list.
It is a fact of life that some WGs only make progress face-to-face. I
think that's often a sign of a problem, but it's a fact. But if that
happens, the chair needs to (with the help of minutes takers and other
participants) post detailed notes of the discussion to the list and ask
for objections. That serves two functions: (a) It makes a record of work
that was done; and (b) it gives people who don't attend meetings
(including new folks who come along) a chance to participate and voice
their concerns. *Achievement* of consensus might have to occur f2f for
some issues in some WGs, but it seems to me that *assessment* of
consensus must be completely possible on the list, even if the only
poster to the list is the chair with all of the f2f notes.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478