On Dec 11, 2015:5:52 AM, at 5:52 AM, Joel M. Halpern
<jmh(_at_)joelhalpern(_dot_)com> wrote:
The NetMod style interim meetings are an example of the exclusionary problem
I see with virtual interims.
a) for all practical purposes, decisions are being made at the interims, with
some verification on the list.
That is inaccurate; we make decisions but have brought them to the list
for
verification (and documentation purposes).
b) that schedule of meetings is inherently exclusionary of a large range of
people. Yes, a consistent core of people getting together and working on a
project consistently can make more progress. But that is at the price of
effectively excluding the alrger community.
So are physical meetings. The point of getting to the bottom of issues
needs
to be the driving factor here; not having meetings. The only way to know that
people are
not able to attend meetings is for them to tell the co-chairs, and then make
adjustments -
which I personally have done many times to accommodate participants.
—Tom
We do allow and encourage design teams. And design teams get together in
whatever way and schedule they want.
However, a design team has to thoroughly justify there results to the working
group, and get meaningful concurrence. Merely confirm acceptance is not
usually sufficient for design team outputs..
Yours,
Joel
On 12/11/15 4:59 AM, Benoit Claise wrote:
Hi Brian,
Hi,
I find these two statements somewhat inconsistent:
Extended sequences of virtual interim meetings should be the exception and
not the norm
Recurring meetings (recommended if much debate is expected), may be
scheduled together, with a single announcement.
I don't understand the inconsistency.
For example in NETMOD, we scheduled bi-weekly meetings until all open
issues on a specific document were addressed.
It doesn't mean that by default, we have recurrent meetings, and there
is no agenda, we cancel the call.