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

["Michel Biezunski" <mb@infoloom.com>]

I support Steve's point of view than F2F meetings are irreplaceable.
It's hard to achieve consensus and to make progress if many people
are not present on a regular basis and exchange ideas, points of views, etc.
The thing which I have seen happening several times in F2F meetings is
that people (including me) are able to change their minds after having been
convinced by others. It's much more difficult to achieve this with a
one-hour
conference call for example.
Also, it already appears that some of the ideas that are in the topic map
standard
are not understood at once, and can only be discussed fruitfully after a
certain amount
of time.
It seems to me that given the fact that we need to build consensus on a
variety of
questions, and that some of these issues will require a significant amount
of time before
various opinions can be confronted and enrich each other, it gives me the
impression
that the job will not be as successful if it's not built on the ground of a
strong consensus,
which I think can only happen after people have started to know each other
and really
worked together.

Michel
================================
Michel Biezunski, Infoloom
1 boulevard du Temple, 75003 Paris, France
Tel +33 1 44 59 84 29 Cell +33 6 03 99 25 29
Fax +33 1 47 50 90 33 Email: mb@infoloom.com
Web: www.infoloom.com
================================

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven R. Newcomb [mailto:srn@techno.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2000 3:47 PM
> To: xtm-wg@egroups.com
> Cc: topicmapmail@infoloom.com
> Subject: Re: [xtm-wg] Re: Charter: Participating Member conditions
>
>
>
> 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/_/952924489/

-- Talk to your group with your own voice!
-- http://www.egroups.com/VoiceChatPage?listName=xtm-wg&m=1