Re: let's have an HTML WG teleconference Thu, 29 March

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Dan Connolly wrote:
> I'm happy to take advice in the comments field, but I don't have any use 
> for single-bit "no, I prefer that the WG not hold a teleconference this 
> week" answers. Even if there are more "no" answers than "yes" answers, 
> the people who give "yes" answers are likely to make for a useful 
> meeting.

Very well. I personally would have found it useful to know whether people 
thought a teleconference would be worthwhile or not, but possibly people 
will have a more informed opinion after a teleconference.

Instead of trying to convince you that a teleconference would not be 
useful, let me instead try to ensure that if we do have a teleconference, 
it be as useful as possible.

I propose that before any meeting (including this Thursday's) we get a 
clear and succint description listing the following information:

   * What problem the meeting is supposed to be fixing

   * Why e-mail has failed to solve the issue, why a meeting is
     expected to solve the problem better

   * Who should call in

   * What people should read as briefing material before the call

   * What results from the meeting would result in the meeting being
     considered a success

I think this would go a long way towards alleviating my concerns, which 
are based on many years of experience with teleconferences and face to 
face meetings with all levels of W3C and W3C working groups.

Could you provide us with the above information before Thursday's call?

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2007 07:10:39 UTC