ineffective use of meeting time

[Bound, Jim]

I do yes.

But also this affects consensus. For example when we do show of hands
and I just requested this of Margaret and Bob in ipv6 and they did not
do it.  I think its important.

1st Who read the spec then the question.

Or do not vote if you have not read the specs.

I don't care if you read all the emails if you have not read the specs
you should not get a vote in a meeting on consensus.  I would argue this
is why we revisit and revisit because we really did not have consensus
because those who want to revisit may in fact not believe.  

I believe if the question is asked correctly most people will be honest
and not vote.

I predict we would be going with consensus with 20 hands at the high end
then and that should tell the chairs something too.  I know of three
people who voted last week on something very important who not only did
not read the specs but did not follow the email.  I went up and asked
each of them after the meeting (not right after the meeting but offline
later).  I asked them then why did you vote.  They said they had the
jist of things.  I just walked away and when out of sight shook my head.
I though what if some doctor or soldier is dependent on this spec
tomorrow and bad stuff happens, and we thought we had consensus.  Next
mail thread. Running code the final check.

/jim

 


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:spencer_dawkins at yahoo.com] 
>Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 10:56 PM
>To: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
>Subject: RE: ineffective use of meeting time
>
>
>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
>