> On Dec 11, 2015:5:52 AM, at 5:52 AM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. >