- From: <Nick_Van_den_Bleeken@inventivegroup.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:43:43 +0100
- To: "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>
- Cc: boyerj@ca.ibm.com, public-forms@w3.org, raman@google.com
All, My company and I are not sure if changing the number of face to face meetings to only two meetings each year will ensure that all/most members will attend both meetings. Experience with other working groups has shown that when you lower the number of face to face meetings you will still have people that aren't able to come to those fewer meetings. This because : there is a scheduling conflict that wasn't known when the meeting was scheduled (both related to the company as personal), unable to travel due to funding (for bigger companies at the end of the year, for smaller companies just because they are going through a difficult period), other company specific reason why you can not attend. If you can't make a meeting due to one of the previous reasons, it is worse then before because you are missing 50% of the meetings instead of 25%. We also think that it is going to be hard to increase the number of meetings again after your lowered them and it turned out that it didn't fix our problem. We also believes that during face to face meetings our company gets the most in return for our 'investments' in W3C. This is the time when interesting discussions are held, and it even happens that people talk about how they implemented something and what they could have done better (during the meetings but defiantly during the breaks and diner). Having two calls a week will certainly increase the work that gets done __IF__ people manage to do action items between the calls, otherwise it will just increase the number of action items, that a limited number of members are handling. Having two calls a week I personally don't like that much due to the time they are scheduled. A Typical working-day starts at 7u30 for me, and the call ends at 6pm (or 6u30pm if we start the time Raman proposes) local time, after that I have to drive home with takes another hour. So I get at home at 7-8pm when we have telecon, I don't have any trouble working some days so long, but having to commit doing it two days a week for the WG (plus some extra day(s) when it is busy at work), is maybe a bit too much. Don't understand me wrong, I don't have any trouble with doing some extra calls for some weeks, or doing 2 hour calls for some period but having them every week, I'm not sure about that. The other problem with the proposal is that it is harder for my employer to commit that I am available on the two fixed hours on the fixed days, then it is to have me available the one each week and the 4 half weeks a year. The later (how it is currently) is easier to plan in a small company as ours, with limited resources (people). On the other side my employer is happy to commit that I will be able to do more work if it stays like it currently is and do some more WG related tasks then I do now (lucky me). I just wanted to give my and my employers opinion before the telecon starts, so you can read it and think about these points. Regards, Nick Van den Bleeken - Research & Development Manager Inventive Designers Phone: +32 - 3 - 8210170 Fax: +32 - 3 - 8210171 Email: Nick_Van_den_Bleeken@inventivegroup.com public-forms-request@w3.org wrote on 11/21/2007 12:05:01 AM: > > 8:30--9:30 would be better, because then I could eat breakfast > from 8:00--9:00. > No disrespect intended, but I've decided not to take any W3C > calls at earlier times --- whatever the subject --- I killed > myself taking way too many of those in my past life. > > John Boyer writes: > > Good to hear you like the idea. > > > > Regarding your not coming... oops, I actually proposed the old time > > because you recently commented that the 8am time is inconvenient because > > you get hungry. I forgot that we changed to the 8am time because you > > couldn't make the 7am time. > > > > Do you have any other times that might work? Would 6:30am-7:30 or 7:30 to > > 8:30 be better? > > > > Cheers, > > John M. Boyer, Ph.D. > > STSM: Lotus Forms Architect and Researcher > > Chair, W3C Forms Working Group > > Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software > > IBM Victoria Software Lab > > E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com > > > > Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer > > > > > > > > > > > > "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com> > > 11/20/2007 02:46 PM > > > > To > > John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA > > cc > > public-forms@w3.org > > Subject > > Proposal for face-to-face meetings and telecons in 2008 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think 2 meetings plus two calls a week is a good idea --- > > especially if we can partition the calls to have very focused > > agendas e.g. one call for present bug-fixes vs one call for > > longer term things. > > Of course I wont come to the one at 7am PT, but that's a known fact. > > > > John Boyer writes: > > > We haven't had much of a chance to continue the discussion by email > > about > > > how to increase attendance and participation in 2008, but we did begin > > to > > > have some attractive ideas at the end of the last telecon that I would > > > like to continue discussing tomorrow. > > > > > > Here is a proposal based on the discuss: > > > > > > *How about we have only two face to face meetings, but have two calls > > per > > > week.* > > > > > > There is an obvious benefit of reducing the cost of participation, > > which > > > is important to the survival of smaller organizations and even > > important > > > to those at larger organizations where approvals are hard to come by. > > > > > > There is also the obvious benefit of reducing the schedule upset to > > > oneself and one's employer. > > > > > > However, I also think this will result in significantly accelerated > > > progress. It is hard to commit a large chunk of time to the group, so > > > committing any time tends to get put off; indeed, the recent face to > > face > > > attendance is really just one manifestation of this general point. > > > > > > Having an extra hour *scheduled* in weekly would therefore accelerate > > us > > > by quite a bit by giving us more time in increments that people can > > > manage. And if you have to miss the occasional call, it's not so bad > > as > > > missing a whole face to face. > > > > > > I also think it would be possible to get people more engaged in doing > > at > > > least one action item between the calls. And as people get better at > > > doing action items, they become less of a bother because they can be > > done > > > more quickly. > > > > > > Here are a couple of logistical notes: > > > > > > If this option is selected, I would think we should consider moving the > > > > > Raleigh face to face out to May, then meet at the tech plenary in > > October. > > > > > > If this option is selected, I would think the second call should take > > > place during our old time on Thursday mornings (7am pacific, 10 > > eastern, > > > etc.). > > > > > > If this option is selected, we may need the approval of a higher > > > authority, such as the CEO of W3C. I think it is quite unlikely we > > would > > > have to recharter because we are holding telecons in lieu of face to > > face > > > meetings. > > > > > > Finally, note that I did also thinking of the alternative of going down > > to > > > three meetings and having a 90 minute call. But that alternative > > scores > > > quite a bit lower on all of the above metrics. It doesn't cutcosts in > > > > > half, it doesn't cut the big schedule upsets in half, and it doesn't do > > as > > > good a job accelerating the group because we'd still be meeting only > > once > > > weekly, so no chance to break it up and get people to do action items > > > between the calls. > > > > > > Please post your thoughts about this proposal. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > John M. Boyer, Ph.D. > > > STSM: Lotus Forms Architect and Researcher > > > Chair, W3C Forms Working Group > > > Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software > > > IBM Victoria Software Lab > > > E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com > > > > > > Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer > > > > > > > -- > > Best Regards, > > --raman > > > > Title: Research Scientist > > Email: raman@google.com > > WWW: http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/ > > Google: tv+raman > > GTalk: raman@google.com, tv.raman.tv@gmail.com > > PGP: http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/raman-almaden.asc > > > > > > -- > Best Regards, > --raman > > Title: Research Scientist > Email: raman@google.com > WWW: http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/ > Google: tv+raman > GTalk: raman@google.com, tv.raman.tv@gmail.com > PGP: http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/raman-almaden.asc > > -------------------------------------------------- Inventive Designers' Email Disclaimer: http://www.inventivedesigners.com/email-disclaimer
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 11:43:55 UTC