[WG-UMA] APAC-friendly meeting times vs. successful meetings

gil.kirkpatrick at viewds.com gil.kirkpatrick at viewds.com
Mon Oct 6 23:01:17 CDT 2014


And what immediately follows in the minutes:

"The chair pro tem apologizes profusely for having forgotten to offer an 
audio recording option today. This call was NOT recorded."

What's good for the goose...

I'm pretty sure that if everyone on the call consents and the recording 
is only made available to working group members, there is no issue.

-g

------ Original Message ------
From: "Eve Maler" <eve at xmlgrrl.com>
To: gil.kirkpatrick at viewds.com
Cc: "wg-uma at kantarainitiative.org UMA" <wg-uma at kantarainitiative.org>
Sent: 7/10/2014 2:34:20 PM
Subject: Re: [WG-UMA] APAC-friendly meeting times vs. successful 
meetings

>In the early days we discussed the audio recording option, but there 
>was a KI policy discussion that, if I recall correctly, led to our not 
>recording. My searching led to this:
>
>http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/LC/Leadership+Council+Teleconference+-+2009-06-17
>
>This set of minutes is not exactly normative (and I can't find the 
>final conclusion of the discussions); I will ask Joni and the LC for an 
>update on policy.
>
>("Pretty good?" :-)
>
>  Eve
>
>On 6 Oct 2014, at 6:40 PM, gil.kirkpatrick at viewds.com wrote:
>
>>  Sure thing. Your minutes are usually pretty good, but I was wondering 
>>if the conferencing system provide a recording capability... that 
>>would be useful.
>>
>>  -g
>>
>>  ------ Original Message ------
>>  From: "Eve Maler" <eve at xmlgrrl.com>
>>  To: gil.kirkpatrick at viewds.com
>>  Cc: "wg-uma at kantarainitiative.org UMA" <wg-uma at kantarainitiative.org>
>>  Sent: 7/10/2014 11:13:29 AM
>>  Subject: Re: [WG-UMA] APAC-friendly meeting times vs. successful 
>>meetings
>>
>>>  You are, currently. I do want to get your input! Could you commit to 
>>>reviewing emails about open issues and responding where you have 
>>>opinions?
>>>
>>>  Eve
>>>
>>>  On 6 Oct 2014, at 4:28 PM, gil.kirkpatrick at viewds.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>  I'd certainly rather keep them, but if the APAC schedule cuts out 
>>>>people who are more critical to the process than me (I assume I'm 
>>>>the only APAC participant?), dropping the APAC schedule makes sense.
>>>>
>>>>  -g
>>>>
>>>>  ------ Original Message ------
>>>>  From: "Eve Maler" <eve at xmlgrrl.com>
>>>>  To: "wg-uma at kantarainitiative.org UMA" 
>>>><wg-uma at kantarainitiative.org>
>>>>  Sent: 7/10/2014 6:12:37 AM
>>>>  Subject: [WG-UMA] APAC-friendly meeting times vs. successful 
>>>>meetings
>>>>
>>>>>  I fear that our experiment with APAC-friendly meeting times isn't 
>>>>>going so well, precisely when we need all hands on deck to get 
>>>>>through our V0.9-to-V1.0 issues. If we had a well-oiled machine 
>>>>>around global round-robin meeting times, or a really large APAC 
>>>>>contingent, it might be different. But I'm currently thinking that 
>>>>>we should go back to a consistent schedule of meetings at the same 
>>>>>hour every week, at least through the end of the year.
>>>>>
>>>>>  If you feel strongly that we should KEEP the APAC-friendly times, 
>>>>>please weigh in by email.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Eve
>>>>>
>>>>>  Eve Maler http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog
>>>>>  +1 425 345 6756 http://www.twitter.com/xmlgrrl
>>>>>
>>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>>  WG-UMA mailing list
>>>>>  WG-UMA at kantarainitiative.org
>>>>>  http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  Eve Maler http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog
>>>  +1 425 345 6756 http://www.twitter.com/xmlgrrl
>>>
>>
>
>
>Eve Maler http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog
>+1 425 345 6756 http://www.twitter.com/xmlgrrl
>



More information about the WG-UMA mailing list