Re: diff of TPE editing since the FPWD

Three things:

	- We all agree that the documents need to be in harmony. That is good.

	- Roy and I could have a productive conversation about editing process when issues cross documents. He raised some valid points today, and there are others we still need to sort though. I think this is better suited to phone than email, and for the procedural side, that should be a fairly straight-forward discussion. 

	- There is a larger discussion around the very point of the working group. I'm giving thought to that discussion. The challenge, as I see it, is this: how do we talk about what are often deeply-held and conflicting world views in such a way that we have an ultimately productive experience from it? We are coming to the point of closing major issues. We are not going to go away and naval gaze for a month, or more, and get derailed. Not happening. But I do hear -- loud and clear -- that there is substantial interest in ensuring these differences are voiced, discussed, and heard. 
	Two concrete ways we might keep things productive are to (1) time box an in-person discussion. One block of time allocated, and that's it for the f2f. (2) Ground our dialog in specific use cases rather than just have an abstract discussion. When we look at specific issues, we have a much more common ground than we will ever find at the philosophic layer. And, to be clear, we are working to get to good-enough agreement and publish documents. If you have constructive additional thoughts, please let me know. This is not a majority vote deal; the chairs set the agenda. But I am trying to be both transparent about where I am coming from and open to the group's wisdom. 

Good weekends to all,
	Aleecia

Received on Saturday, 14 January 2012 01:33:48 UTC