[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]