Re: action items

On Thursday, July 11, 2002, at 06:23 PM, Lofton Henderson wrote:

>
> At 10:28 AM 7/11/02 +0300, Dimitris Dimitriadis wrote:
>>> [...]
>> [dd] Olivier, do you monitor the QA WG list for closed action items? 
>> If so, you could alsways remove them for brevity. If it implies a 
>> bigger workload on your behalf, we should stay close to process as 
>> Lofton indicates.
>
> Yes, it is probably best to *not* assume that Olivier will notice a 
> "this completes A-...", when embedded in a longer message.  Especially 
> since he has a very full plate, let's send him a simple message to 
> clear items.   (Copy the WG or not, at your discretion -- if the item 
> is likely to interest other people, then I suggest to copy the WG.)
>
[dd] Sounds reasonable, we should all stick to this process then. Sorry 
for lagging.

>>> [...]
>>> You have posted draft minutes, and it has been more than a week since 
>>> the meeting.  By now, final should have been posted to the WG, and 
>>> you should have sent the IG a message with a pointer to the archive 
>>> (or web page in the case of f2f).  See:
>> [dd] Just did, one day late.
>
> Thanks for this.  One day late is not a big deal.  A few days late, a 
> week or more late -- that starts to be a problem.
>
[dd] Characteristically enough, the IG list was full of announcements 
for WG minutes a few days after your reminder :) Simplifies if we stick 
to the process though, as people who are interested in QA work should 
have a good opportunity to monitor the calls.

As a side note, let's review each other's minutes thoroughly, really 
helps.

> -Lofton.
>

Received on Friday, 12 July 2002 08:49:55 UTC