ineffective use of meeting time

Spencer Dawkins spencer_dawkins at yahoo.com
Sun Mar 23 19:56:20 CET 2003


I agree with Jim, Keith, Aaron, and everyone else who has asked
us to minimize (not eliminate) background presentations.

Jim is identifying a related problem - working groups that have
so many drafts that even a well-disciplined participant will
have read only drafts of interest - which may be a minority of
the drafts being discussed.

(And why not, in a mostly-volunteer organization?)

But the chairs are STILL looking for "consensus of the meeting"
when discussing a draft, in a room full of people who haven't
read it and are respecting the process by not participating in
discussion of a draft they haven't read.

Sometimes, we put competing proposals in separate working groups
(aren't we up to three IM protocol workgroups?), and sometimes,
we put competing proposals in a single working group (RSVP and
LDP in MPLS).

I'm trying to restrain myself from entering solution-space, but
do people agree that we have working groups with charters that
could be narrower, especially when they contain multiple
competing proposals in a single charter?

Spencer

--- "Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound at hp.com> wrote:
> 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

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list