W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > September 2012

Re: Next telco webrtc

From: Dan Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2012 06:04:16 -0400
Cc: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, "Stefan Hakansson LK" <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1560C721-B97D-48DC-BCD3-433C8BE0FFA9@voxeo.com>
To: Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>

I almost agree :)  We need both the detailed minutes and the summary.

Just as there are meetings where no decisions occur, I have been in too many meetings where valid points were brought up but then lost because only a summary of decisions was recorded, resulting in a huge amount of re-discussion of the same points.  This is particularly important for contested or novel topics.

Much of the problem is an uncontrolled speaking queue.  The W3C "track-everything" minuting style only works when you don't have people trying to talk over each other.

-- dan

On Sep 7, 2012, at 10:13 AM, Jim Barnett wrote:

> Just a personal opinion on meeting minutes.  We spend a lot of time
> looking for a minute taker who in turn frantically tries to write down
> what everyone is saying - yet, as Cullen says, the results are pretty
> much useless.  It would be easier and at least as useful to replace the
> minutes with a short summary of the decisions that were actually made
> (or explicitly deferred, etc.) 
> - Jim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cullen Jennings (fluffy) [mailto:fluffy@cisco.com] 
> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 9:56 AM
> To: Stefan Hakansson LK
> Cc: public-webrtc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Next telco webrtc
> I'm not going to object to this any further than this one email but I
> think this is the wrong decision. 
> When you compare the two leading dates
> one of them is missing one of the chair (but we do have two chairs for
> more or less that reason)
> the other date is missing 3 out of the 4 editors of the draft as well as
> the other key contributors 
> I think that is the wrong tradeoff. I will note that the minutes
> produced from our meetings are totally useless so it it's not like
> people can read them and figure out what the conclusion of meeting were.
> I respect that the chairs have to sometime choose between two bad
> choices and there is always someone that things they made the wrong
> choice.  We have had far too many meetings where no useful conclusions
> were reached - I don't want this to be another one of those. 
> I do have a very concrete suggestion to reduce this problem in the
> future - please please please, do not send out polls for a time that
> have more than 6 choices on them. When you send out something with 20
> choices on them, people can not possibly block out all the 20 on their
> calendar so they don't end up reserving all the spaces that could work -
> instead they just peanut butter spread across them in a random way and
> we don't really find out what works. We have seen this over and over
> again in these types of polls, less choices (but good and reasonable
> choices) result in more people being able to attend the leading day not
> less. 
> On the topic of making the meeting actually result in useful
> conclusions, I strongly encourage the chairs to limit the topics such
> that enough time can be spend on the topics we do address to reach
> meaningful conclusions.
> Thanks for the rant, I feel better now
> Cullen
> On Sep 7, 2012, at 2:41 AM, Stefan Hakansson LK
> <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> the next telco will take place on
>> *Sept 17th, 10pm - 11:30pm CEST*
>> Please make a note in your calendar
>> Stefan for the chairs
>> P.S. If you check the Doodle poll result you will notice that the time
> picked was not the one with maximum availability. This is due to that we
> wanted both chairs to be able to attend, and also not push the meeting
> too far into the future
Received on Saturday, 8 September 2012 10:04:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:33 UTC