Re: [office-collab] change tracking proposal

[Robin LaFontaine <robin.lafontaine@deltaxml.com>]

I agree with your suggestion, Rob, and clearly this means that we will need another meeting scheduled for Tues 19th of April, which I will book. You would certainly be the best person to chair the meeting on the 19th, so that I can take a more active part in the discussion. Would you be willing and available to do this? I am OK to chair the other meetings.

We will also need to be able to share a screen so that we can see a presentation. Would IBM be able to provide this facility to us as well?

One thing that I would like to avoid is repeating the presentations to the TC in the event that we are not able to reach consensus. Therefore it is very important that we develop documentation which highlights the advantages and disadvantages of the two approaches, which the TC can use to make its decision, if this is needed.  This documentation will also be a useful record of our discussions.

Robin

On 22/03/2011 17:19, Doug Mahugh wrote:

91D8426D0DE09F4C9E09E1605E7FF08E27E0FC27@TK5EX14MBXC112.redmond.corp.microsoft.com" type="cite">

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

-- 
-- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Robin La Fontaine, Director, DeltaXML Ltd  "Change control for XML"
T: +44 1684 592 144  E: robin.lafontaine@deltaxml.com      
http://www.deltaxml.com      
Registered in England 02528681 Reg. Office: Monsell House, WR8 0QN, UK