meeting time

[Aaron Falk]

--On Wednesday, December 11, 2002 1:28 PM -0800 Dave Crocker
<dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:

>      Relying on major work to be done in face to face meetings actually
>      produces results that are *less* stable and often are *less* viable.
>      They are not as well understood and not as well reviewed. And
>      community buy-in is actually reduced.
> 

I agree.  I rarely recall seeing what I'd consider "major work" in a f2f
meeting being an efficient use of time.

I've found the best use of meeting time is to flag issues which can be
captured in meeting minutes and followed up by the wg chair or document
editors.  

I've found microphone debate in meetings entertaining (sometimes) and
informative (less frequently) but rarely advances the work as well as a
similar email, i.e., (more) thoughtful and self-documenting, discussion.  I
should note that often the participants in the debate may not be following
the wg or even on the mailing list and may have important points to make.
So, even though sometimes wg debates are a waste of time, I still see them
as occasionally critical and at least important enough to spend f2f time
on.  

I see my task as wg chair, vis-a-vis meetings, to do what it takes to be:

1) get the right presentation of the issues in the meeting to motivate the
right people to stand up and make a point (which can be followed up later).
This sometimes requires working the hallway in advance to ask the right
people to attend and work with the presenters to be sure their
presentations are understandable to non-wg participants but not needlessly
pedantic. 

2) ensure that the followup takes place through accurate minutes, assigning
actions, and nudging.

--aaron