Hello all,
I would support having a well planned 2-hour meeting, every
2 weeks. Simply adding another hour every week will not by itself improve
our productivity, and will further impact all of our personal calendars. I
do fully support Matt's suggestions 1 through 4.
Regards,
Steve Wierenga
HP
From:
[mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 12:18
PM
To:
Subject: Re: [kmip] Length
of meetings
Hi Folks,
I think scheduling 2 hours is also a good
idea. As the group gets larger, it becomes necessary to extend the meeting
length just because the procedural portions (taking attendance, roll call votes,
etc) also get longer. Plus the work load usually increases.
I'm
unhappy that we only got through one item today, and doubly so that it was
partly my fault. The group is still pretty new, and I think we're still
trying to find the efficiency point. Early in the alignment discussion,
someone suggested that we immediately start an electronic ballot and get the
issue over with. In retrospect, that would have been more expedient,
although I think we had some useful dialog on the pros/cons of 32-bit vs
64-bit.
I dislike meetings that go down a rat hole as much as the rest of
you, and hope that we can learn (possibly through some trial-and-error) the
processes that keep the meetings efficient. Here are some of my thoughts
on how we can keep the meetings lean-and-mean:
Post agendas and (mostly) stick to them
Streamline the taking of attendance: I'm hoping that we can find a
fast way to use WebEx to create the initial attendee list and avoid phone roll
calls. Ideally, we could use a Kavi tool to take attendance
automatically (does OASIS support this?).
During review of action items, only discuss status of the action items,
not the item itself. Otherwise, you may never get status updates on the
other action items, or get Liaison reports and such... :)
Adopt a policy of requiring all proposals to go to a 7-day electronic
ballot before adoption by the committee and inclusion into the draft. I
learned this while fumbling through about 3 different revisions of the main
motion in today's meeting. This was made clear when a whole bunch of new
objections were raised when the motion was changed from "requiring 64-bit
alignment of the value field" to "adopt the 64-bit proposal". I'm
assuming that most of the objections were because the members did not have
ample time to review the proposal. By doing a 7-day electronic ballot,
this provides time for a review.
Thoughts? It always takes a
little bit of time to figure out the group dynamic, but I think that after we
get the mechanics down to a well-oiled machine we'll be able to make progress
very quickly.
Cheers,
-Matt
Marcus Streets wrote:
I believe it is clear that we do not achieve
sufficient progress in a
one hour meeting.
Therefore, I propose we
increase the meeting to two hours each
week.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To
unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates
this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
