On 3/19/2013 1:20 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
Merely to offer an example notation:
Sean Turner mentioned that a year ago someone asked him how to become
a WG chair. Asking is the first step! He thinks that if people want to
actively participate, they need to volunteer to write drafts etc.
{guidance/leadership}
The above lists asking as the first step. Most people would not ask as
it is awkward to do so.
From the 20 seconds that I used to look for examples, it was
immediately clear that there are at least two kinds of items to note.
One, of course, is direct questions and requests. One other is 'topics'
that are raised, unresolved, and seem worthy of follow-up. They might
or might not turn into questions/requests, but at least they are
noteworthy (literally).
The larger issue goes beyond annotation methodology. Namely an open-mic
environment that seeks to produce an exchange that is actionable, rather
than a tone that is primarily for venting.
A tone that encourages constructive action tends to be common in working
group discussion. So we know it's possible and we are all experienced
with it. So the change we need for open-mic sessions is (simply to)
move more towards developing specific questions and suggestions; this is
a change on the dais, as well as at the microphone...
d/
ps. I've skipped the substantive issue you pursue, concerning the
problematic selection processes, only because here I want to focus on
making open-mic sessions more productive.
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net