> On 17 May 2019, at 10:33 am, Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On May 17, 2019, at 5:38 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> .... but it works horribly when there's any controversy or disagreement about scope. For example, the ATOMPUB WG was probably the worst experience I've ever had in a standards body, and in my opinion it's largely because the group never met face-to-face (except for a single pre-chartering meeting). This was sold as enabling small developers to participated, but what it ended up being was a mess, because people had little shared context and no established trust. > > What could have been done differently? > > For example, were there f2f interims? There were not. I think they could have had a set of people meet and build trust. While there's a risk of creating an "in group" there, if done well you have a group of folks who have mutual respect and demonstrate that to the rest of the group, creating a culture that's respectful and productive. I've heard folks in other venues opine that the real purpose of F2F meetings is just this; socialisation, so that when you're arguing with someone on the other side of the planet behind a keyboard, there's some shared context / good will. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
