| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
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.---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
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:
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.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