WG4 Business Plan: WG4 Operating Procedures

[MURATA Makoto]

2012/1/12 Rex Jaeschke <rex at rexjaeschke.com>:
> Requiring written papers:
>
> I wrote, “As a result, I propose WG4 adopt a “Two-Week Rule”.
>
> It appears that Murata-san deleted that section, but added no rationale.

I actually replaced "I" by "We", and just moved your explanation to a
note.

Regards,
Makoto


> Quite frankly, except for special circumstance (at least one of which I
> mentioned) I think that anyone not able to distribute a paper 2 weeks ahead
> of a teleconference or F2F meeting shows a lack of planning and/or
> discipline and should not be able to spend (possibly waste) committee
> members time until they have their arguments thought through. Given that we
> have teleconferences every 4-5 weeks, it’s not long to wait for the next
> one; that is, I don’t see the urgency that any specific paper be considered
> at any particular meeting.
>
> Taking important decisions at F2F Meetings only:
>
> Murata-san wrote that he, “does not want to establish a guiding principle
> about which decision can be made by which type of meetings”.
>
> I think that this is exactly a guiding principle WG4 needs. Of course, we
> might find a reason to circumvent it, but it’s a good starting point. In any
> event, if we really are serious about giving liaisons sufficient time to
> review our proposals, then announcing those at or soon after a F2F meeting
> gives us 3+ months before the next F2F meeting, which should be enough time
> to get feedback from liaison organizations. Expecting them to do so in much
> less time is quite unreasonable.
>
> Again, this makes for a predictable pattern.
>
> Rex



-- 

Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake

Makoto