Hi, Maciej-
You may have misunderstood what I wrote. I did not propose that issues
be brought up and solved in a binding manner during a single telcon
(though some minor issues may be, in the interest of acting in a
suitably-paced manner). As I clearly stated, the issues should be
raised, discussed via email and supporting documents, giving everyone a
chance to give input... the decision would be done during the telcon
after the data has been collected, to draw the issue to a close.
I honestly don't see how you could have jumped to your conclusion,
unless you didn't read my email.
Details inline....
Maciej Stachowiak wrote (on 6/16/08 4:09 AM):
On Jun 15, 2008, at 10:24 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
I encourage the chairs of the new WebApps WG to start holding regular
telcons in which binding decisions are made, based on evidence
presented in email, wikis, tests, other documents, and (yes) verbal
discussion.
I am strongly against making binding decisions in telecons. In my
experience, there is not enough time in the course of a telecon to fully
think through a proposed decision, but usually no one objects to any
given decision if they cannot think of an immediate objection. Thus,
decisions are effectively made by anyone who can speak forcefully enough
to convince the chair to propose a resolution.
... just as decisions can be made by email, or by an editor acting
alone, that are based solely on the volume or tone or ideology of the
posters. In fact, I think we've seen this happen a lot recently.
This is exacerbated by
the fact that telecon decisions are often put as a proposed resolution
and the chair only asks for objections. That means that even if no one
understands the proposal enough to be affirmatively in favor, but does
not feel uncomfortable objecting to something they don't understand, it
still ends up passing.
Then that is another communications problem that would need to be dealt
with, but it also assumes a poorly-chaired telcon. Luckily for this
group, we have two experienced chairs, with long experience in
standards, and with good judgment.
Also, telecon-based decisions often end up
ignoring email feedback if those who gave feedback by email are not
present to defend their position.
...
I think Web standards desrve to
be treated with at least the same degree of seriousness.
And I think that, if a person is to treat this working group with the
seriousness it deserves, they should make an effort to attend telcons
where the issues are being discussed. Typically, we set agendas
beforehand, and we can accommodate people who want to attend these
telcons by holding them at mutually agreeable times.
I've heard the argument that telcons take too much time, but I question
this claim; much can be accomplished in a 1.5 hour conference that would
take more time over email.
It is simply not possible to make an informed technical decision in the
scope of a one-hour phone call, with only a few minutes of discussion.
No software project works this way, and a standards project shouldn't
either.
This is not what I proposed... can you explain why you are
characterizing it this way?
I do think telecons can be useful from a project-management perspective
(checking on action items and so forth) but not for technical content.
They can also be a reasonable way to originate proposals to send by
email to the full group for discussion.
I agree that they are also useful for these cases, but disagree that
they are unsuitable for discussing technical issues. As a developer in
many different jobs, I've found that face-to-face and voice discussions
are extremely helpful in getting everyone on the same page quickly, and
are a good way to resolve technical issues.
It almost seems as if you are arguing against coordinating on technical
issues, from your argument.
Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, WebApps, SVG, and CDF
