WG / documentation question

[avri]

john.loughney at nokia.com wrote:

> 
> OK, but a small pet peeve - I dislike unbounded email discussions - 
> in my experience, after a certain point, they cease to be productive.

I am not sure what you mean by unbounded.  If you mean that one does not 
know the termination point before it is reached, then I don't agree with 
you.  On the other hand if you mean a looping conversation then I do.

In terms of the conversations on this list, I think that by and large,
new information and new details of analysis have come through as the
conversations continued.  A few times, I was close to stepping in with a
recap or a translation or whatever, but things resolved themselves to my
satisfaction.  And a few times the conversation strayed uncomfortably
close to personal recriminations, but the participants pulled back, so
nothing needed to be said.

> 
> I understand you want to listen, but it would be helpful to be 
> 'managing' the discussion, trying to summarize long threads, making
> conclusions, etc.

This is an interesting issue.  As has been mentioned on several 
occasions there are different styles of chairing.  I think that
they range from micro management to exception management.  I tend away
from micro management and do not believe in curtailing or trying to
shape the dialogue except for when it strays to far from the charter;
i.e. basically a form of exception management.  But I do admit to being
very liberal in what I accept as being on topic.

BTW, I do not think there is one right style of chairing.  I think the
proper method depends on the situation, the topic and the tendencies
of the participants (including the chair).  I certainly find I have a
different style chairing a process group then I do chairing a technical
group.  And I chair differently when I have a co-chair then when I am a
solo chair. Sometimes a chair needs to be a facilitator, and sometimes
a chair needs to be a traffic cop. And sometimes a chair needs to stand
back and let people talk - of course until someone asks for them to say
something, And then they must respond.

Also, while I am interested in listening, I also mentioned that the ideas
I wish to contribute had already been contributed by others.  It is
certainly an element of my preferred behavior pattern for myself to not
say things someone else has already said unless it becomes necessary for
emphasis or to show support.  So, when I have little new to add I will
listen.
Especially in a group like this that is trying to really express the
perception people have of problems and the processes by which they can
be alleviated

Thanks for your comments,

a.