| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Chris,
I am sure this is not done out of unfairness, but rather the chair trying to allow the individual to get his question asked. Individuals often take a long time getting to their question, while others are more succinct. I saw this issue this week at the July Plenary and repeatedly had to stop people.
As you seem to have ideas on how to run these task force meetings, can I assume that you are now willing to be a volunteer that I can draw upon to chair such efforts and meetings. Please let me know and I will keep this in mind for the next challenge the task force faces that needs someone to step up and drive an issue to completion.
John
From: Chris Cole <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2023 3:15 PM
To: STDS-802-3-B400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_B400G] Fwd: [802.3_B400G_OPTX] P802.3dj Joint Logic/Optics Track June ad hoc meetings announcement
Hi John
On the call, some individuals were allowed lots of follow-on discussion, more were cut off after one question. That is not fair, and unnecessary given that the ad hoc call ended 45 mins early.
There should be a clear statement of what's allowed, and if the policy is one question after an ad hoc presentation, that should be discussed because that runs counter to the stated objective of an ad hoc, for example as made by Mark.
Chris
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 10:01 AM <jdambrosia@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Chris,
Thank you for your thoughtful input.
However, your recollection of the absence of discussion is wrong. I was on the call. I recall lots of discussion. I have spoken with others who were on the call – lots of discussion.
While I can understand that freeform discussion can have its benefits – it can also be unfair, as some individuals have a tendency to talk in excess, which then eats into the time for others to get their questions in. Anyone chairing within 802.3 recognizes that they have to address conversation and fairness, as well as decorum.
In my opinion other task force participants have recognized the time constraints that the chairs are dealing with and accommodate the situation. I was thankful that the .3df / .3dj task forces recognized this after I explained the time constraints we were under at this week’s joint task force meeting. We got through our agenda quickly and had more time for discussion / straw polls / motions.
I asked Mark to be the Vice-Chair of this effort given my respect for his efforts in my past task forces as well as his own. However, this is a big project with lots of issues to address. As you seem to have ideas on how to run these task force meetings, can I assume that you are now willing to be a volunteer that I can draw upon to chair such efforts and meetings. Please let me know and I will keep this in mind for the next challenge the task force faces that needs someone to step up and drive an issue to completion.
Regards
John
From: Chris Cole <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2023 5:58 PM
To: STDS-802-3-B400G@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_B400G] Fwd: [802.3_B400G_OPTX] P802.3dj Joint Logic/Optics Track June ad hoc meetings announcement
Hi Mark
I don't think it's that complicated. My view is that on Ad Hoc calls we should not limit to one clarifying question, but rather allow a back forth within reason. Only when it gets repetitive, or meandering without purpose, should it be cut off.
However, that's only one opinion. What's important is to get a sense from the participants what balance they would like struck; one clarifying question, like during interim or plenary sessions, or more discussion.
Chris
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 8:45 AM Mark Nowell (mnowell) <mnowell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Chris,
I’m sorry you felt some constraints in the discussions at the last ad hoc call. I 100% agree with you that the goal of the meetings is to foster discussion. I don’t have any recollection of that particular meeting being one where I was needing to limit discussion but of course it happens.
When we set up these meetings we have no idea how many people will request a presentation slot. We try to judge meeting engagement when we announce the meeting duration. But have no control on how many requests we receive. We ask each presenter for their requested time allocation. Then within the meetings we aim to balance the time each presentation has so as not to squeeze out later presentations in the agenda by running out of time. That would be unfair to someone who has put in the time and effort to pull together a contribution.
It is not an exact science as you know. And requires quite a bit of judgement to attempt to balance all presenters with their time to present and allow participants their time to discuss. On some meetings this is easy, and others very difficult. I really have no recollection of what you are talking about below though. I think we spent the first hour on Mike’s presentation and Q&A (request time was 20 mins). Some of that time was lost due to Mike dealing with a power cut at home but I can imagine that around an hour for one presentation I was starting to be aware that the other presenters needed to have their fair time to present and may have started trying to wrap things up.
I don’t think anyone would have objected to going back to Mike’s Q&A after we finished out the other two presentations (which again both exceeded requested time with lots of discussion). I frankly didn’t think of it but would have been open to the suggestion to go back to Mike’s topic if anyone had asked.
Mark
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-B400G list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-B400G&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-B400G list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-B400G&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-B400G list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-B400G&A=1