On 27/02/2015 08:21, Benson Schliesser wrote:
> Ted Lemon wrote:
>> we in fact do do work during f2f meetings, and the rule is "confirm
>> on the mailing list." If working groups are not following that same
>> practice during interim meetings, they are doing it wrong.
>
> I agree with this. In particular, I think the best mindset is that a WG's mailing list is the authoritative record. Decisions
> that happen in any sort of meeting are tentative until they find their way to the mailing list. (BTW: I think this helps avoid
> the dependence on having great minutes taken by volunteers, and the inevitable disappointment that brings.)
Sure. But that means that the WG chairs (or secretary) have a strong
obligation to send *detailed* explanations of issues raised and proposed
resolutions to the mailing list, promptly, i.e. the same day or the
next day, asking for discussion and opinions. I'd think (from experience)
that for each hour of teleconference, that would take a half hour of
drafting a careful email. If you don't do that, you are disenfranchising
the people who could not attend the teleconference, which is not OK.
On 27/02/2015 08:39, Andy Bierman wrote:
> I agree with your concerns.
> IMO virtual interim meetings should be used for discussing
> big issues where the WG is stuck. They should not be for
> minor issues that could be handled on the mailing list.
> They should not be status meetings either.
Nor should they be design team meetings masquerading as WG
meetings. If there's a core of active designers who want to
meet weekly, that's fine as long as we don't pretend it's
something else.
> If work shifts away from the mailing lists to bi-weekly meetings,
> then this is somewhat unfair to the people who live in timezones
> where the meeting time is outside normal business hours.
Delete "somewhat" and I would agree with you.
Brian