Greg, > > Perhaps I didn't understand what you meant by "digital meeting." > > I was thinking that providing a variety of tools for conferencing > would allow for a diversity of participation means. > Do you rate a diversity of means higher than a diversity of perspectives? > Asynchronous participation, like email or usenet news, is something > that doesn't require much setup (unless it's not available where you > are). That might make it seem less urgent. > > I think there is a preference among people to have face-to-face, or at > least telephone conferences because there are some things that are not > communicated very well in email and other text-based media. Tone of > voice and facial expression lend much to the communication process. > There's a preference, true enough, for looking at means rather than goals. Does one not 'communicate' in text? Use telephony. Does the phone truncate 'expression'? Use video. Does video still fall short? Meet face-to-face, in Singapore. Each increase in 'bandwidth' *appears to improve the process -- and (as Eric says) to limit not only the numbers of participants but the *time of participation. This, despite the fact (I think its safe to say) that no one is on the Internet who doesnt have email. Why doesnt it follow that any 'unversal' convention should stick with text -- and if there is a 'communication problem' in text, that one might look at *how* one uses text? (As an initial hypothesis, perhaps the ways in which text is poorly used may reflect *frustration with the medium, because it isnt something 'fancier'...) Compared to normalising the net on such fancies as audio/ video, it might be a whole lot more efficient to *educate participants to control their impulses -- or to develop filters -- not of 'content' or 'speaker,' but of 'style.' > > Isnt it > > conceivable that those who are 'working out' the agenda would be > > identically the same as those who will 'consider the issues > > beforehand'? > > This is certainly possible. I was thinking that it is helpful to have > an idea of the goals you want to accomplish, which an agenda can help > with. Sure, if *your goals are congenial to everyone interested, then the agenda consists of those goals. More generally, however, isnt it likely that what is a goal for A is a means for B? -- and that formulating the agenda under those circumstances is a matter of establishing priorities (which comes first; what contributes to what, etc) -- which is necessarily a collective effort? > Also, keep in mind that over time, the number of participants > in the process will change, so the issues and the agenda itself may > change as well. Quite so. The meeting must be *on-going, and the agenda designed to accomodate new items (i.e. integrate them in the existing priority-outline, not just tack them on the end). > I sense that many people are emotionally involved in these issues for > a number of reasons. That would explain why they are frustrated when > the product, or even process is not going in the way they hoped it > would. I agree that emotional involvement *may lead to frustration, but isnt it also what leads to taking another look at what one hoped to accomplish, or the process one is using? For instance, when a loaf of bread doesnt turn out as I expected, I could say Im frustrated and quit baking -- or I can look at my ingredients (is buckwheat the same as wheat?), and the proving temperatures, and the kneading technique Im using, and even at making flatbread instead of yeast bread, and by adjusting my 'style,' continue to bake. That is, if my goal was to make a perfect loaf the first time, Im frustrated. If my goal is to *learn to make a loaf, why should I be? For rhetorical flourish, add a dose of "Whatever happened to the framework?" kerry
