ineffective use of meeting time

Bound, Jim Jim.Bound at hp.com
Sun Mar 23 22:40:58 CET 2003


We should stop focusing for people at meetings who don't read the spec.
Focusing mutliple views on a technology point is good I agree before
discussion.  But to often we are appeasing those who did not bother to
read the spec.

I would like to see no one gets in the room if you did not read the spec
or a section in the back of the room.  Though they are usually very
quiet so the only real point is we should assume in the meeting for
topics that the specs have been read.

/jim

 


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Aaron Falk [mailto:falk at isi.edu] 
>Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 1:04 PM
>To: Keith Moore
>Cc: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
>Subject: Re: ineffective use of meeting time
>
>
>Keith-
>
>I agree with you frusteration but I also think that a short 
>presentation is useful for focusing the group on the topic at 
>hand to get a more useful discussion.  If you want to have 
>disussion on a bunch of topics...
>
>--aaron
>
>Keith Moore wrote:
>> I just realized that the problem-statement WG is currently 
>providing a
>> very good example of one of our biggest problems with the way we do 
>> work:
>> 
>> we have precious little face-to-face meeting time.  despite this, we
>> spend the vast majority of our meetings in presentations of material 
>> that could (in most cases) easily be published as 
>internet-drafts and 
>> read by participants at other times.
>> 
>> the one thing we can do in meetings that we can't do online 
>is discuss
>> things face-to-face, and take advantage of the increased 
>fidelity and 
>> bandwidth of communication in meatspace.  this is often incredibly 
>> useful for reducing dissent and promoting closure. but when 
>we try to 
>> do this in meetings, we are told that the agenda is full 
>with speakers 
>> and that we are already behind schedule.
>> 
>> Keith
>


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list