As I recall, on our last call you did not object to reviewing the status of pending ballots, you objected to reviewing the results of the topics from our F2F meeting the previous week, and whether or not to plan for any follow-up. (By the way, after the call I received comments from others that they liked the post-F2F meeting review, and wanted to do it again after future F2F meetings, so opinions vary.)
We have always used our teleconferences to discuss pending ballots, and often you can get more done and reach more agreement by talking and not sending endless rounds of email. I also think we should be sensitive to an issue Peter Bowen is trying to address through his proposed Forum Trello board to keep track of proposals and ideas – without that, ideas get lost and disappear. I think it’s useful to use a portion of our time each meeting to review the status of pending ballots, even if it’s only to look for endorsers or learn that a ballot is being dropped. And if the update from a ballot sponsor is “nothing to report”, then that happens pretty quickly. Having said that, I’m happy to follow what a majority of members want to do about pending ballots during meetings – review or not review unless someone requests a review. Let’s discuss on Thursday. From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2017 2:49 PM To: Kirk Hall <[email protected]> Cc: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: [cabfpub] Draft Agenda for CABF teleconference April 27 And on the last call, it was requested we have more actionable objectives for these, particularly since the general question is "Any updates" For example, we could leverage this time before the call to identify what ballots have updates, and focus the discussion on those. If there are no updates, then knowing before the call is useful. I presume you intend this for the Ballot proposer to speak to? As noted, these calls are an expensive use of everyone's time. As much as possible, we should try to optimize for keeping them short and actionable. I'm not objecting to discussion if there's items to discuss - I'm just requesting we take a more considered approach to our agendas and make sure we only discuss things for which there is new information or pertinence to discuss. On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Kirk Hall <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: We always review the status of ballots.
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
