RE: Workshop and meeting requirements

Karl,
I must disagree with some of the things that you said. See inline below.

Steve Zilles

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karl Dubost [mailto:karl@la-grange.net]
> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 9:24 PM
> To: Chris Wilson
> Cc: Jeff Jaffe; Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH); Charles McCathie Nevile;
> public-w3process@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Workshop and meeting requirements
> 
> About what Chris said,
> 
> Le 13 mai 2014 à 05:50, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> a écrit :
> > Put it this way - let's say Tantek and I decided we wanted to make a "Moving
> the W3C Forward" open-ended unconference happen.
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> It would be interesting to dig in the process discussion archives and staff
> mailing-list archives. I have a hunch that the W3C Workshop requirements
> comes from:
> 
> 1. Organizing meetings
> 2. Noticing some mistakes, errors, complaints 3. Creating a list of good
> guidelines on organizing good meetings.
> 4. Having still some bumps along the road 5. One day thinking hmm that's a
> good way to start a WG.
> 6. Let's make it into the process document.
> 
> (insert here my wish for more annotated version of the process document ^_^ )
> 
> Anyway, let's rewind a bit.
> 
> We want people to be able to
> 
> * meet spontaneously
> * solve issues together
[SZ] No, we want the membership to be able to participate in the work of the organization. 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. But, if the meeting is on a topic that is not yet the purview of an existing Group, then it is important that enough notice be given to allow people to participate, especially when attending the meeting involves getting plane tickets, a visa and freeing the attendee's calendar. That is why the process has lead times for meetings.
> 
> The W3C Workshop Process comes too often with the "burden" of "We might
> need to create a WG and/or activity". It should not be. And in many cases
> completely unrelated as Chris said above or Daniel about the name. At Mozilla,
> the meetings about a specific area, issues needing coordination are often call
> "work week", open to contributors.
[SZ] If the meeting can be attended via a communications channel, such as the telephone or IRC, then it is reasonable to hold the meeting on short notice. Even then, however, some people who have a desire to attend the meeting may already have conflicts that week. The "burden" of Workshops is that there is not yet an established community (either CG or WG) that has regular participation that can be expected to be up-to-date on a given topic. That is why Workshops require more lead time than do meetings within a WG or CG.
> 
> We are very productive as you can see.
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/images/1/16/Catsworking.gif

> 
> 
> 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".  

Travel requirements, availability, etc.
> Organizing an event for 10 persons does not require a lot of efforts (depending
> on where are located the persons). Managers approval dance, Tickets booking
> (last minutes are expensive), visa requirements, periods of time when hotels
> are more expensive, etc.,
[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. 
> 
> So what I could see for events organization is more guidelines than
> requirements.
> Not perfect but similar to this discussion https://wiki.mozilla.org/Work_Week

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

>

Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2014 05:04:43 UTC