Home > Standards Blog

Advanced Search 

Welcome to ConsortiumInfo.org
Thursday, June 22 2017 @ 09:06 AM CDT

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Meeting procedures
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 06 2008 @ 03:33 AM CST
To do away beforehand with dispositions that common sense dictates to be non-controversial would have shed some light on the amount of time needed to resolve the remaining issues, and taking the most controversial dispositions off-line immediately would have freed up more time for the dispositions where little discussion was expected to be necessary.

From http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/open/0933draft-rev2.htm I got the distinct impression the agenda wasn't set up with that prioritisation in mind (and that's what I'm suggesting):
"The convenor thanks those NBs who have informally indicated to him their highest-priority comments and responses. Taking the variety of these into account, and the partial nature of the response, the convenor has decided it would be counter-productive to prescribe an order of discussion in the agenda. Instead NBs will be invited to speak by the convenor in the meeting sessions, and the convenor will thus ensure NBs can enjoy fair representation over the course of the meeting by granting them permission to speak in alphabetical order, making as many passes over the delegations as time allows."

Of course that's a draft agenda, so until the audio recordings are released for public scrutiny we'll have a hard time finding out, won't we?
[ Parent | # ]