Re: [office] Proposed TC Meeting Agenda Items

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

Michael Brauer <Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM> wrote
on 01/19/2006 03:10:36 AM:

> I think there are two advantages that a discussion of this topic at
a 
> face-to-face has. The first is that we meet in person rather than
by 
> phone. The second advantage is that we can reserve more time for the
> discussions as we have in a con call.

I think the key point, made a few notes ago, is that
we (the TC) need to agree on the scope and purpose of the problem we're
trying to solve.  What scenarios are we targeting?  What are
the use cases?  Is the aim to quickly apply existing best practices?
 Or are we trying to advance the state of the art with a substantially
greater effort?  What are the "must haves" versus "nice-to-haves"?
 In other words, what are the requirements for meta data enhancements?
If the TC can reach a consensus on that, then a subcommittee can be given
the charge to answer this questions subject to the agreed on constraints.
 They subcommittee would be free to have more frequent and longer
calls, or meet in person at their discretion.  But if we don't have
a consensus on the requirements, then we risk going around in circles.

What might work well is if we had a straw-man proposal,
which stated clearly what we're attempting to do.  Even better, two
or more straw-man proposals if there are multiple ideas.  It will
be far easier to reach a consensus if we have something crisp and concise
in front of us when this is discussed.  

I'll defer to the domain experts for how to solve
the problem, but I think we need a TC-wide consensus on what the problem
we're solving is.

-Rob