Re: [wsbpel] Guidelines [Was RE: [wsbpel] This telcon process doesn't work!]

[Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@enigmatec.net>]

+1 to Jeff's point.

jeff suggestred using some sort of IRC mechanism. One of the advantages 
is that everyone can see the queue. I got into deep water at the end 
which prompted a vote because I had tried to get on the queue for some 
time and could not tell if I was getting closer to the start of the 
queue or if the queue was being constantly reset. This is frustrating 
for all. So let's get a mechanism that supports a "visible" queue for 
those on line at the very least.

Cheers

Steve T

On Tuesday, May 20, 2003, at 06:04  pm, Jeff Mischkinsky wrote:

> At 11:23 AM 5/16/2003, Donald Steiner wrote:
>> I quite support Rand's observations. Just one follow-on guideline, 
>> taking up on Fred's remarks: In general, if an issue that can't 
>> immediately be resolved comes up in a formal meeting like this, a 
>> motion should be made to deal with it offline and return to it at the 
>> next meeting.
>
> The problem here is twofold:
>   a. a motion to table is non-debatable - something that wasn't 
> observed during the call - and because of the speaker management no 
> one who knew that was able to state that - but it still requires a 2nd 
> and a vote. (Also note a motion to table doesn't delay anything to the 
> next meeting. It simply "parks" the motion temporarily. The next 
> person to be recognized can move to bring it back from the table. 
> (That's really why it's non-debatable.) Often people use it as a way 
> to "kill" a motion because it dies after the meeting. (I won't get 
> into "sessions".:-)
>   b. If the intent is to not talk about the topic immediately but to 
> create a taskforce/subcommittee/etc. which will eventually report back 
> to the larger group, then that motion is itself debatable. I believe 
> that was in fact the intent on the call. But that merely changes the 
> challenge from managing the debate about the issue, to managing a 
> debate about whether to create a subgroup.
>
>  Robert's Rules was specifically developed to allow large groups to 
> discuss and make decisions efficiently, while at the same time 
> safeguarding the rights of the minority to be heard. However, there's 
> a catch. The people running the meeting AND the members have to 
> understand the rules and know how to make them work.
>  A well run large meeting HAS to have a speaker queue. The question is 
> more of a mechanical one of how to manage the queue.
>
> jeff
>
>>
>>  - Donald
>>
>> --------------
>> Donald Steiner
>> Chief Scientist
>> WebV2, Inc.             Phone&Fax: +1(650)940-1382
>> 169 University Ave         E-mail: Donald.Steiner@webv2.com
>> Palo Alto, CA  94301          WWW: www.webv2.com
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rand Anderson [mailto:randerson@macgregor.com]
>> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 10:59 AM
>> To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
>> Cc: 'Ben Bloch'; Burdett, David; 'Darran Rolls'; Diane Jordan
>> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] This telcon process doesn't work!
>>
>> Folks,
>> My initial reaction to today's kickoff:
>>
>>
>> We ran into some issues (some business but mostly protocol, I think), 
>> but to me, these seem like mostly normal issues for the birth-pains 
>> of a new group with this kind of mission and industry interest. The 
>> benefit to running into these kinds of issues in our kickoff meeting 
>> is that we can solidify some ground rules and practices early in our 
>> life that will help things go more smoothly the rest of the way, 
>> before we get to the really gnarly issues. BTW, thanks to all who 
>> spearheaded, attended, and supported this, but especially to Diane 
>> and John for their patient leadership.
>>
>>
>> Some points of order that I might offer:
>>
>>
>> A few folks complained about having a conference call meeting 
>> conducted mostly in "listen-only" mode and needing to resort to 
>> speaker queues. I presume they felt that this somehow would constrain 
>> or limit (negatively) the opportunities for contribution and/or 
>> interaction.
>>
>>
>> In fact, if we were to strictly follow Robert's Rules of Order, these 
>> constraints would be barely noticed by anyone participating (with 
>> maybe a minor exception, see my suggested revisions below). [In fact, 
>> following Robert's Rules on a conf call with speaker-queuing is 
>> better than following Robert's Rules in person in at least one way: 
>> the fairness of the queuing is managed for us by the call system; 
>> when in person, the sequence of hand-raising is somewhat subject to 
>> the memory of the chair.]
>>
>>
>> John, I think you mentioned getting a FAQ for Robert's Rules posted 
>> to the BPEL site - this is crucial, and everyone needs to get some 
>> basic familiarity with operating in a group bound by Robert's Rules. 
>> They are intended (and crafted over many years) to help ensure fair 
>> and orderly conduct of decision making by groups.
>>
>>
>> To be clear, for BPEL conf call TC meetings, I am strongly in favor 
>> of conducting them roughly as was proposed for today's call, with 
>> listen-mode most of the time (to minimize line noise), plus the 
>> following guidelines:
>> -          allow folks to get in the speaker queue at any time (this 
>> is simply analogous to raising your hand to be heard at an in-person 
>> meeting)
>> -          ask that the meeting chair simply call on those in the 
>> queue in a FIFO manner, as appropriate to the point at hand
>> -          note that getting into the queue doesn't mean you can 
>> speak at will; you will get your turn as called upon by the chair
>> -          again, participants should think of getting in the speaker 
>> queue simply as equivalent to raising your hand. If you 'drop your 
>> hand' then re-raise it, you first fall out of the queue and then get 
>> back on at the end of the queue. This is fair.
>> -          until we get the hang of it, we maybe need to be a bit 
>> more heavy-handed on enforcing some of the rules of order, e.g., when 
>> the item on the floor is whether or not you object to the current 
>> motion, do not use your moment on the floor to suggest another 
>> amendment - that only creates confusion. There are certain times open 
>> for amendments, etc. Read Robert's Rules to get some understanding of 
>> how this works.
>>
>>
>>  [...]
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsbpel-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: wsbpel-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>
> This email is confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If 
> you are not the intended recipient,  please do not copy or disclose 
> its content but  delete the email and contact the sender immediately. 
> Whilst we run antivirus software on all internet emails we are not 
> liable for any loss or damage. The recipient is advised to run their 
> own antivirus software.
>

This email is confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient,  please do not copy or disclose its content but  delete the email and contact the sender immediately. Whilst we run antivirus software on all internet emails we are not liable for any loss or damage. The recipient is advised to run their own antivirus software.