| 1 |
On 16:12 Thu 12 Feb , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> I suggest a preliminary agenda gets sent out a week before the |
| 3 |
> meeting. Afterwards, Council members make sure they've read up on |
| 4 |
> everything, asked all their questions and posted initial opinions at |
| 5 |
> least three days in advance. Then, assuming satisfactory answers to |
| 6 |
> all of the above, a decision can be reached in the meeting with little |
| 7 |
> discussion -- and going over one hour shall not put a stop to it. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> To make sure this happens, I suggest that any Council member who does |
| 10 |
> not post their preliminary opinion (which can include a list of |
| 11 |
> questions that they consider unaddressed, and which can change as new |
| 12 |
> information becomes available) at least two days before the meeting is |
| 13 |
> counted as not being at the meeting for slacker purposes. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I like pretty much all of this. My only problem continues to be meeting |
| 16 |
length. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
The current meeting time falls in the middle of the workday in the US, |
| 19 |
so long meetings aren't an option for at least Mark and me. I think Mark |
| 20 |
intends to send out a rescheduling note soon to see if we can fix that, |
| 21 |
but our evenings are horrible for the Europeans, etc. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
That's just another reason why I'd like to push things onto the lists to |
| 24 |
the point where we could even drop live meetings entirely and simply |
| 25 |
have deadlines instead. It sometimes seems like the main purpose of |
| 26 |
meetings is to allow people to bring up last-minute objections. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Thanks, |
| 30 |
Donnie |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Donnie Berkholz |
| 33 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux |
| 34 |
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com |
Archives