| Ben-
I don't understand the difference between "comment resolution meetings" and any other Working Group sub-group meeting. From my point-of-view, they are all the same and have the same notice and rules requirements.
Geoff
The "off-cycle" interims
example seems redundant: we already have ballot resolution
committees, which are formed at duly constituted meetings and
which meet remotely to do comment resolutions using various
telecommunications technologies. Thus as an objective for something
new, this seems weak.
I would prefer to see the focus on remote participation in
regularly scheduled plenary and interim meetings.
Just one opinion
Ben
On 6/16/2016 3:36 PM, Pat Thaler wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
One of my action times resulting from the discussion of
remote attendance was to begin a discussion of our objectives
for enabling remote participation in face-to-face meetings.
Having a clear idea of the objectives should help us in
deciding on how to support remote participation.
To kick off discussion, some possible objectives are:
- Enable remote participation from subject matter experts
- especially when they are needed for a targeted
discussion that isn't long enough to justify travel For
example:
- Consideration maintenance item where people who worked
on that portion of the standard aren't attending.
- A topic that needs coordination with experts from an
other organization
- Participation by those who can attend some but not all
meetings.
- Participation in off-cycle interims - sometimes subgroups
hold an extra interim to do comment resolution of
recirculations or to get extra meeting time.
- Outreach to people who can't attend meetings - e.g. to the
developing world, to academics, etc. (this is one of the
reasons that IETF does remote participation.
Please suggest objectives I've missed and comment on which
objectives are most important.
Regards,
Pat
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
|