RE: [office-collab] change tracking proposal

[Doug Mahugh <Doug.Mahugh@microsoft.com>]

I like this idea, Rob. I'll be leaving for Prague after tomorrow and won't be back in the office until Monday 4/4, so I'd prefer to cover our proposal on the 4/12 call if possible, to have some time to prepare after my trip.

Regards,
Doug

-----Original Message-----
From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 8:00 AM
To: Doug Mahugh
Cc: office-collab@lists.oasis-open.org; Robin LaFontaine
Subject: RE: [office-collab] change tracking proposal

Would it be worth having three meetings?

There is always the risk that in any given meeting, we mix information sharing with questions and criticism and debate in an unbalanced way.  I know that this is difficult enough to moderate in a face-to-face meeting, but near impossible to do so over the phone. 

However, we could structure the meeting time in such a way to give everyone the opportunity to make their case. 

For example:

1) At first meeting, have one proponent present their proposal.  They walk us through their entire proposal, targeting 30-45 minutes.  Questions may be asked for clarification, but this is not the opportunity for criticism. 
 Give the presenter the space to lay out their proposal.

2) At second meeting, have the proponent of the other proposal do the same, again targeting 30-45 minutes, with questions for clarification.

3) At the third meeting, then (hopefully) we're all well-informed and we can debate the proposals.  The Chair would keep the debate balanced, ensuring that each SC member has a fair opportunity to offer their comments. Ideally, the Chair himself would not be an active proponent in the debate.  If this is not possible then we could appoint an alternative chair, pro tempore, for this particular meeting, to allow all proponents the full ability to participate in the debate.

-Rob