On 11/12/2015 22:59, 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.
Maybe you have an issue with the term "recommended"?
Yes. "recommended" and "exception" are really inconsistent with each other.
I think the text should be a bit more nuanced. Something like
Extended sequences of virtual interim meetings should be considered when
numerous specific issues need to be debated, but are not the normal
mode of operation.
. Recurring meetings (used only if much debate is expected), may be scheduled
together, with a single announcement.
Also, I think that in the bullet list for virtual interim meetings, a
significant point (for some of us) is missing. Something like:
. IETF participants live in many different time zones. This must be taken
into
account when scheduling. Recurring meetings should be arranged at varying
times of day to share the discomfort of late night or early morning calls
fairly.
We would need the equivalent of this sentence, currently listed for the
face-to-face meeting:
o The meetings must be scheduled (location/timing) with fair
access for all working group participants.
Regarding your proposed sentence, we should trust the WG chairs to do what's
right, instead of imposing more rules.
With a global community participation, scheduling calls becomes a nightmare.
A WG chair knows who the key players are in his WG (editor, authors,
individuals in favor of the different solutions, etc.),
i.e. the persons without without conclusions could not reached ... simply
because the discussions would be repeated if they
would be excluded.
The advice to my chairs wrt to interim meetings is:
- to have a successful interim, make sure all the key players are
involved/included (*)
- be fair in scheduling for everybody
- anyway we validate the decision on the mailing list for the people who
can't attend.
In the past, I scratched my head on trying to express (*). All tentative
sentence appeared as being non-inclusive.
So I would go for a generic sentence, maybe something such as:
The meetings must be scheduled (timing) with fair access for all working
group participants.
Sure. As long as the point is recognized.
Rgds,
Brian