[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Communication channels
For the love of all things holy, can we please have the discussion ONLY in one place. We as a TC are failing all over the place here. We need to pick:
1) email,
2) slack
3) google docs
4) carrier pigeons
5) Deepspace array
I do not care. But we need ONE place people can go to, to find things. Having content spread everywhere makes it near impossible for people to figure out what is going on. We are basically saying, that unless you are super active in every piece of dialog, you will have NO IDEA what is really going on.
I love slack and google docs, but I am beginning to really think that we should just do everything over email.
Bret
Jason R already cooked up a slack channel, but I think the googledoc is a good idea too.
From: Kemp, David P
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 11:02 AM
To: Brule, Joseph M <jmbrule@radium.ncsc.mil>; 'Fai, Joyce' <Joyce.Fai@gd-ms.com>; Allan Thomson <athomson@lookingglasscyber.com>; dave.lemire <dave.lemire@g2-inc.com>
Cc: Jyoti Verma (jyoverma) <jyoverma@cisco.com>; Bret Jordan (CS) <bret_jordan@symantec.com>; Trey Darley <trey@newcontext.com>; duncan@sfractal.com; Yu, Sounil <sounil.yu@bankofamerica.com>; Jyoti Verma (jyoverma) <jyoverma@cisco.com>; Kemp, David P <dpkemp@radium.ncsc.mil>
Subject: RE: presentation for TC meeting next week
Joe Brule: Author
Joyce Fai: Editor
Dave Lemire: Reasonable
Allan Thomson: +1
Dave Kemp: +1
Since all who have responded support having an electronic discussion followed by an electronic ballot, I don’t believe a TC vote is needed to put the process into motionJ. We are using a google doc in the TC playground folder to discuss targets; that seems to be a reasonable approach for this topic, but other media would work too.
Any objections to starting the discussion?
Dave
P.S.,
I believe that if there are a certain number of topics or amount of material a person wants to cover, a specific amount of time is required to cover them regardless of where that time is spent. The goal of the TC/SC structure is to avoid wasting anyone’s time, allowing the available time to be spent most efficiently. Duncan’s approach – each group “sticks to it’s knitting” – is the most efficient. Assigning one topic to more than one group reduces efficiency. Assigning too many topics to one group also reduces efficiency.
If a student needs to study math, history, literature, and phys-ed, putting history and math into the same class does not reduce the amount of time needed to learn both topics, and it wastes the time of students who need to learn history but not math. If a vendor needs to cover message encryption and target formats, putting those topics in the same subcommittee doesn’t reduce the amount of time needed to cover them, and it wastes the time of people who want to focus on one but only maintain awareness of the other.
Merging subcommittees wastes people’s time, and deliberating a single topic in multiple subcommittees also wastes people’s time. So I am not in favor of doing either.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]