- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:02:06 -0800
- To: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
> The Chairs are interested in feedback on holding > this kind of F2F meeting. We intend to discuss > this at this week's WG meeting and then to hold > a straw poll to gauge interest and attendance levels. Here is my feedback on holding a F2F meeting: I'm in favor of a F2F meeting if: 1) the agenda is focused on discussing issues which have reached an email impasse 2) The issues on the agenda and the alternative proposals are well documented and there's sufficient time to prepare; time to present alternatives and points of view are structured. 3) the different sides of each issue on the agenda are well-represented. 4) the individuals tasked with delivering proposals and editorial are in attendance and willing to participate in good faith. (1) and (2) are necessary for having an informed discussion. (3) is necessary for making progress on resolving the issues and (4) is necessary for translating that resolution into action. Also, I think it is necessary: 5)The relationship between conclusions reached at a F2F meeting and the overall WG decision policy is documented and agreed beforehand, since this is not well-covered by W3C Process or the current (and soon-to-be-revised) HTML Working Group Decision Policy. This is to insure transparency and acceptance of the process by others not able to attend. A primary value of a face-to-face meeting over a phone conference (and of a phone conference over an email discussion) is the possibility of being able to hold individuals accountable for their actions (or lack thereof). Issues can get resolved by email when the parties involved are actually interested in coming to a mutual understanding. But it's easier to evade actually responding to the salient points made by selective quoting or resorting to "I don't understand", or just not replying in an email conversation. > formal face-to-face meetings can and usually do > result in significantly worse results than considered > discussion by e-mail. Results are "better" or "worse" depending on one's perspective. A situation where individuals aren't held accountable for their actions and behavior might be "better" from some points of view and "worse" from others. The IETF decision rules are that decisions are made by email, and certainly using meetings for discussions and coming to tentative conclusions to be confirmed on the mailing list is another approach to standards governance. I recommend: http://www.ietf.org/tao.html#getting.things.done If the chairs wanted to propose a decision policy with a similar relationship of F2F and email discussion, I think that would be worthwhile. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Thursday, 28 January 2010 02:02:42 UTC