I’m sure we’ll work out the process as we move forward,
though I’m uncertain longer meetings are the answer.
Things we could consider…
I only recognize 6-10 voices (our co-chairs and 6 of the more
vocal folks), when you get the floor please state your name before proceeding
(additionally this will help Subhash with minutes).
With 40 or so potentially active people, getting the floor
and having a meaningful dialog may be a challenge.
Is the http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/kmip
included in the meeting invite officially sanctioned by
OASIS? If so, should we use this to record attendance and acquiring the floor
(maybe even con call voting)?
We should continue to use the WebEx to point out areas during
the doc discussion.
Any motion which potentially impacts the core spec, or
requires review should be put to a 7 day electronic ballot.
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: [kmip] Length of meetings
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
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.
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: