W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > May 2014

RE: Workshop and meeting requirements

From: GALINDO Virginie <Virginie.GALINDO@gemalto.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 11:51:29 +0200
To: Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>, "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
CC: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <239D7A53E5B17B4BB20795A7977613A4022CD85959CE@CROEXCFWP04.gemalto.com>
Hi all,

From the tread discussion, it looks to me that again, people are talking about different types of events with different objectives :
- WG : business as usual, clear perimeter of participants
- workshop-like : I have a new topic, a new problem and I want everyone to give its opinion on it, including non members and people you don’t know already
- light-focus group : to solve a narrow problem, or a local problem. What you need here is a time spent with already identified people (experts/friends) or people easy to gather as being local.

This last category is the grey zone we don't know how to deal with today.
Do we want to create a new category ? I'd tend to say yes, it will be up ot the people to identify which tool they want to use, if their problem is narrow or too big to be solved by you’re the usual bunch of expert or the local people.

Regards,
Virginie
gemalto


-----Original Message-----
From: Karl Dubost [mailto:karl@la-grange.net]
Sent: mardi 13 mai 2014 09:08
To: Stephen Zilles
Cc: Chris Wilson; Jeff Jaffe; Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH); Charles McCathie Nevile; public-w3process@w3.org
Subject: Re: Workshop and meeting requirements


Le 13 mai 2014 à 14:04, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com> a écrit :
> I must disagree with some of the things that you said. See inline below.

hmmm… weird.

> If the (spontaneous) meetings are held in the context of a Working Group or Community Group and others in the Group are notified, then it is reasonable that a meeting be held with less prior notice.

We said the same. See my paragraphs on booking and visa.

>> The issues need to be articulated around the notion of time, number
>> of participants, key people (subjective).
> [SZ] It is a bit of hubris to assume that the meeting organizers know the "key people". This comes across as saying, "if my friends can attend then that must be enough".

Yup it's why I put subjective. Agreed again. ;)


> [SZ] Do you have any idea of how long it takes to get a visa to the US from China? It can take as much as two months.

yes. :)
been there done that, multiple times. written also invitation letters for WG F2F.

The only thing where we **might** have a disagreement is the "No, we want the membership to be able to participate in the work of the organization."

Membership and W3C staff are important, but I would put always the Web before that. And I thought the discussion was about meetingS and not only Workshops.

:)


--
Karl Dubost
http://www.la-grange.net/karl/




This message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressees and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited.
E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender.
Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this transmission free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for damages caused by a transmitted virus
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2014 09:52:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:10 UTC