Kerry Miller wrote:
> > I remain worried about our ability to review hundreds or even
> > thousands of comments fast enough. It's hard, and we may be pushed
> > to our limits by the Santiago time zone...
>
> Your half-dozen references to *time* constraints make one wonder
> what the perceived benefit is of forcing these complicated issues
> into such an arbitrary box -- when the object of the exercise
> continues to be available 24/7 for just the kind of communicative
> review, interpretation and agreement which everyone wishes to be
> achieved.
>
> Has the Berkman Center put its collective mind to work on this
> conundrum?
>
> ======
> BTW, Diane's remark ("Berlin had a heavy turnout") reminded me I
> have yet to see even the vaguest approximations of attendance at
> any of the live meetings. What kind of heaviness are we talking
> about?
>
> kerry
>
I think around 300-350 in Berlin. The room did not hold quite 400 chairs
and it wasn't SRO. I'm just eye-balling; there was no registration. There
were more speakers than the time comfortably allowed and that's how I
define heavy turnout.
As to the box, may I point out that the comment lists *are* open 24x7.
I believe that many people on working committees simply do not find e-mail
adequate to the task. I'm sure that opinion varies among individuals as
well as being a function of the nature of the work. For taking consensus
polls it can't be beat, however I personally found it extremely inadequate
for the bulk of the MAC's chores. 24x7 is nice, but written text
(especially e-mail where writers tend to be brief) is not an ideal way to
explore complex and detailed analysis anymore than an online lecture is
going to be as optimal as a classroom situation. It probably works better
where everyone on the list already has a shared knowledge of the complex
issue, because things don't have to be explained from scratch.
Time will almost always be a limitation, even on 24x7. Reading long texts
online takes more time than hearing it orally. Time constraints are as
much a function of how much total time a person has to invest as they are
a function of the final deadline. I agree that e-mail is a great tool and
in many cases will be the best tool. But IMHO it's far from perfect and a
physical meeting still gets the job done much better. That said, there
may well be very sound countervailing reasons to forbid physical meetings,
just as there are sound reasons to offer distance learning courses; but I
don't think they encourage efficiency.
Diane Cabell
http://www.mama-tech.com
Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP
Boston, MA
