RE: [kmip] Length of meetings

[<robert.philpott@rsa.com>]

+1 to the proposal of 2 hrs every 2 weeks.

+1 on not relying on web access for attendance. The secretary has enough
to do without monitoring who's coming and going, plus if you are on the
road, it's often not feasible.  I would amend the proposed agenda below
to add a final roll check before adjournment to ask for anyone that
missed the initial roll call.  

You can play it by ear I guess and have folks announce themselves if
they join late, but if it happens much, it becomes a bit disruptive.  If
you miss both the initial roll call and have to leave the meeting before
the end, an exception in this case is reasonable as long as it doesn't
happen all the time.  One other exception is that if there is any
official votes requiring a roll-call during the meeting, you could
announce yourself at that time.

As Mary points out, technically, you must "prove" you are attending via
voice at the beginning of the call.  An email message or an IM to the
chair & secretary during the meeting isn't really "proof", but it can
also work in some cases (e.g. you include some context from the current
meeting discussion in your note). Logistically, in other TC's we've just
gotten in the habit of checking again at the end to catch any late
arrivers.

Rob Philpott 
RSA, the Security Division of EMC
Senior Technologist | e-Mail: robert.philpott@rsa.com | Office: (781)
515-7115 | Mobile: (617) 510-0893


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mary McRae [mailto:mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org]
> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 9:33 AM
> To: Hubis, Walt
> Cc: kmip@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [kmip] Length of meetings
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
>    I just wanted to make sure to let everyone know proper Robert's
> Rules procedure - Roll Call must be taken at the start of the meeting.
> The Chair or Secretary calls the roll, and each person on the call
> must identify themselves.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Mary
> 
> Mary P McRae
> Director, Standards Development
> Technical Committee Administrator
> OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society
> email: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
> web: www.oasis-open.org
> twitter: fiberartisan  #oasisopen
> phone: 1.603.232.9090
> 
> Standards are like parachutes: they work best when they're open.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On May 8, 2009, at 9:01 AM, Hubis, Walt wrote:
> 
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
> >
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>