[xtm-wg] Re: Charter: Participating Member conditions

["Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@techno.com>]

Note: "F2F" means "face to face"

[Dianne Kennedy:]
> I agree with Daniel about the restrictions on the F2F meetings.
> Many of us have $$$ restrictions to traveling to meetings inside the
> US.  It is far more expensive for me to go to California than to
> Europe for example (I am in Chicago).

I'm assuming you mean "far less expensive" rather than "far more
expensive". (?)

> I think we can set up teleconference calls to replace personal
> attendance.  In fact the ICE-AG has done so on occasion when members
> could not personally attend the F2F meetings.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.  Please choose all that apply:

(a) You're saying that insufficient available travel funding to attend
    a meeting should be regarded as force majeure preventing a
    Participating Member's physical attendance.  The problem with this
    idea is that we'll have no practical way to distinguish between
    those who are insufficiently committed to the development of
    consensus, and those who are too poor to attend the meetings.  We
    can't send auditors to examine their financial records.

(b) You're saying that a combined teleconference/F2F meeting is just
    as useful and consensus-producing as a full F2F meeting, and that
    it's fair for some to have to travel while others don't have to
    travel, on account of the disparity between their funding
    situations.  If this is what you mean, my heart agrees but my mind
    disagrees; see below.

(c) You're saying that a teleconference is just as useful and
    productive as a full F2F meeting.  If that's true, maybe we
    shouldn't bother with F2F meetings at all.  Without F2F meetings,
    however, I must tell you that I despair of making rapid progress
    in developing consensus, and I see no way to distinguish between
    the people who are committed to creating the best possible Spec in
    the shortest possible time, and the people whose primary
    motivations lie elsewhere.  Without F2F meeting requirements, the
    only thing a Participating Member needs to do in order to maintain
    his voting privilege is to pick up the phone every now and then.
    Telephone voting makes the whole undertaking too risky and too
    prone to failure.  See further remarks below.

It's inevitably self-defeating to have different F2F committees on
different continents.  From my own perspective, I must point out that
having different faces at meetings in different places puts those who
are responsible for reflecting consensus in the Spec -- the Co-chairs
-- in an untenable position.  No person can serve N masters unless N
is equal to 1.  The Authoring Group must function as a single
deliberative body, so that the Spec can be written in response to the
consensus of exactly one master.

It's also self-defeating to give voting authority to anyone who is not
subject to the same burden-bearing discipline as everyone else.  A
person who grows weary of traveling to meetings is more likely to
contribute to the development of consensus (whether by compromising,
by persuading, by horse-trading, or by any other means or method) than
is a person who merely picks up the telephone.  If a teleconference
participant has voting authority, such a participant can cost all the
meeting-travelers several additional meetings, all at the very low
cost of picking up the phone and "participating".  It's not fair, and,
more to the point, it puts the whole project at great risk.  We must
remember that there are those who, for a variety of excellent economic
reasons, would prefer that our Spec appear on the scene only after as
much delay as possible.  We must make it difficult and expensive to
cause unproductive delay.

Teleconferencing can always be set up for Special Guests, whose
participation in the discussions occurs at the pleasure of the
Participating Members.  If a person has sufficient commitment to the
cause of creating the Spec to make it worthwhile, in the minds of the
Participating Members, to set up a teleconference link to that person,
then that's just fine.  Who could possibly object to such an
arrangement?  Dianne, perhaps your situation is such that you should
be such a Special Guest; I don't think anyone doubts that you're
committed to this project, and I don't think anyone would vote against
inviting your participation as a Special Guest on whatever terms we
could get your participation on, including telephone-based
participation.  

Again, I recommend in the strongest possible terms against making any
policy exceptions that would have the effect of extending the voting
franchise to anyone who doesn't have to attend the meetings in order
to keep that franchise.  Always remember that most votes have one of
two effects: they either register consensus and move the project
toward completion, or they necessitate extra meetings and/or extra
effort by all Participating Members.  All voters -- all Participating
Members -- must pay for those extra meetings and extra effort: no
exceptions can be allowed.

-Steve

--
Steven R. Newcomb, President, TechnoTeacher, Inc.
srn@techno.com  http://www.techno.com  ftp.techno.com

voice: +1 972 517 7954
fax    +1 972 517 4571

Suite 211
7101 Chase Oaks Boulevard 
Plano, Texas 75025 USA

------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Backup- Protect and Access your data any time, any where on the net.
Try @Backup FREE and recieve 300 points from mypoints.com Install now:
http://click.egroups.com/1/2345/1/_/337252/_/952904779/

-- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
-- http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=xtm-wg&m=1