OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

kmip message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [kmip] Length of meetings


As an example, the WebEx system I use allows participants to come and go; you can log into the meeting anytime it is running. However, it is a bit difficult for the secretary to watch the list as people come and go. I think the best policy is that if you arrive late and want to be counted toward the attendance, you need to announce yourself to the secretary.

-Walt

--

Walt Hubis
Software Architect
Engenio Storage Group

LSI Corporation
5400 Airport Blvd Ste 100
Boulder, CO 80301 USA
Phone: (303) 381-4332
Mobile: (303) 641-8528
walt.hubis@lsi.com
http://www.lsi.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Benjamin Tomhave [mailto:tomhave@secureconsulting.net] 
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 4:04 PM
To: kmip@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [kmip] Length of meetings

Every 2 weeks would be more conducive to 7-day electronic ballots.

I'm not sold on requiring web access to take attendance: some of us are
joining during commute time and may not have web access immediately
available. If the mtg is 2 hours in length, do you leave the login window
open the entire time to record attendance?

fwiw.

-ben

On Thu, May 7, 2009 4:18 pm, Rod Wideman wrote:
> I would agree, Matt.  My preference would be 2-hours every two weeks,
> which would provide ample time in between meetings to review material.
> An example flow that has worked well in other standards groups is:
>
> 1     Opening remarks/roll call
>
> 2     Approval of the Agenda
>
> 3     Approval of previous meeting minutes
>
> 4     Review of action items:
>
> *         status of each item is either a carryover or closed;
>
> *         if an action item involves creating a proposal, then the
> action item is closed upon delivery of the first draft of the proposal,
> since it then first becomes a new business item, followed by becoming an
> old business item if it is not successfully approved the first time
> (i.e, it is carried as an agenda item instead of an action item; action
> items track things to do, agenda items track discussions/proposals to
> consider/vote on).
>
> 5     Old Business
>
> 5.1   (old business item 1)
>
> 5.2   (old business item 2)
>
> 5.3   (etc)
>
> 6     New Business
>
> 6.1   (new business item 1)
>
> 6.2   (new business item 2)
>
> 6.3   (etc)
>
> 7     Next Meeting Requirements (optional)
>
> 8     Review New Action Items
>
> 9     Adjournment
>
>
>
> It is also very helpful if proposals against a standard are numbered and
> include a revision number (e.g., v0, v1, etc), so the agenda can
> accurately reflect what is being reviewed.  It doesn't appear that
> OASIS/KMIP has a document numbering tool, so I'm not sure how proposals
> can be sequenced other than by name and revision as posted.
>
>
>
> As an example, your action item for creating an alignment proposal would
> be closed now, and we'd have an agenda item to review your actual
> proposal against the standard.  It would be helpful if there was just
> one proposal (e.g., either the 32-bit or the 64-bit or something) to
> consider and discuss.  Based on the discussion, you may receive feedback
> to revise and post (and remain an agenda item) until a clear consensus
> is reached to warrant a motion for incorporation into the standard.
> Given the large group, someone could decide to move on a revision that
> seemed acceptable enough to pass a vote (whether on the call or
> electronic doesn't matter so much).  There may not be unanimous support
> for every proposal.
>
>
>
> There can be agenda items that seek guidance on a direction to pursue in
> drafting an actual proposal, which could result in "group" action items
> to provide input to the requestor (e.g., 32-bit vs. 64-bit, or use of
> application specific identifiers).  But usually agenda items end up
> being draft changes to the standard to consider (e.g., new sections,
> edits, etc).
>
>
>
> Just some thoughts (since you asked).
>
>
> Rod Wideman
> Quantum
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Matthew.Ball@Sun.COM [mailto:Matthew.Ball@Sun.COM]
> Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 2:18 PM
> To: kmip@lists.oasis-open.org
> 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:
>
>
> 1.	Post agendas and (mostly) stick to them
>
> 2.	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?).
>
> 3.	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... :)
>
> 4.	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
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> The information contained in this transmission may be
> confidential. Any disclosure, copying, or further
> distribution of confidential information is not permitted
> unless such privilege is explicitly granted in writing by
> Quantum Corporation. Furthermore, Quantum Corporation is not
> responsible for the proper and complete transmission of the
> substance of this communication or for any delay in its
> receipt.
> ------------------------------------------------------------


-- 
Benjamin Tomhave, MS, CISSP
Blog: http://www.secureconsulting.net/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/falconsview
LI: http://www.linkedin.com/in/btomhave


"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization,
it expects what never was and never will be."
 --Thomas Jefferson


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]