Fwd: "Proposed Business Plan" document posted as http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/wg4/archive/sc34-wg4-2011-0220.zip

[MURATA Makoto]

Jim,

A number of DRs have to be processed by teleconferences.
Do you think that none of them should be closed officially and
be closed in F2F meetings only?  I don't think there is enough
time in F2F meetings for that.  Or, do you think that approval of
DCORs publication should be done only in F2F meetings?
Usually, we create reasonable drafts after F2F and approval
happens in teleconferences following F2F meetings.

I am not sure if F2F meetings will always have more active
participation.  I guess that we will miss Alex in the next
F2F (and possibly more).

I have been invoved

2012/1/18 Jim Thatcher <Jim.Thatcher at microsoft.com>:
> Perhaps there is a misunderstanding of intent here. It seems that Rex's proposal that important decisions be made only at F2F meetings is being interpreted as a recommendation that those important issues not be discussed or worked on outside of F2F meetings. I'm confident that this is not the intent behind Rex's proposal. Instead, I believe that Rex is proposing that official adoption of significant proposals be reserved done during F2F meetings, where participation is more active.
>
> In my experience with other standards committees that operate under a general rule that important decisions be taken at F2F meetings I have not seen this approach resulting in teleconferences being almost useless. What I have observed is that teleconferences provide a good forum for productive discussions, consideration of proposals, working through concerns, and arriving at a general consensus, with the formal decision to adopt that consensus as the committee's position being made at the following F2F. There is too little time at F2F meetings to have all of those discussions take place during the F2F meetings, and very often the discussions need some "bake time" for participants to think through issues, consider proposed alternatives, seek feedback from other interested parties, and such.
>
> I'm hopeful that we can start to involve other WG4 participants in the business plan discussions. That business plan should reflect the general consensus of WG4 participants regarding the relative priority of the different pieces of work before the WG. Rex has proposed a set of priorities, and I see significant merit in his proposal. I also recognize that there are existing DRs that are very important to particular members, and all WG members need to understand which issues are important to others. It's pretty unlikely that we will all agree across the board on the priority of every DR, but I expect we can agree on the priority level of most DRs.
>
> Beyond agreeing on the relative priority of the DRs it is also important that WG4 identify the experts that are willing to take responsibility for developing a proposed resolution for at least the high priority DRs. At least with respect to the resources that Microsoft sponsors, understanding the priority that WG4 attaches to each DR and the other experts committed to work on their resolutions is very important to me as I allocate those resources.
>
> Regards,
> Jim Thatcher
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: eb2mmrt at gmail.com [mailto:eb2mmrt at gmail.com] On Behalf Of MURATA Makoto
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 7:27 AM
> To: SC 34 WG4
> Subject: Re: "Proposed Business Plan" document posted as http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/wg4/archive/sc34-wg4-2011-0220.zip
>
> (Wearing my JP hat)
>
>> As to Ecma, TC45 has no policy to delay anything.
>
> Re: "Taking important decisions at F2F Meetings only"
>
> Providing a solution to DR 09-0040 is probably the most important thing for Japan.  Thus, this sentence prevents WG4 from addressing it in teleconferences.  Since most issues are important for somebody, it makes teleconferences almost useless.
>
> Regards,
> Makoto
>
>
>
>
>



-- 

Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake

Makoto