|
Hi Brian,
I don't understand the inconsistency.Hi, I find these two statements somewhat inconsistent:Extended sequences of virtual interim meetings should be the exception and not the normRecurring meetings (recommended if much debate is expected), may be scheduled together, with a single announcement. 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"? We would need the equivalent of this sentence, currently listed for the face-to-face meeting: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.
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. Regards, Benoit Regards Brian . |