OASIS Key Management Interoperability Protocol (KMIP) TC

Back to discussions
Expand all | Collapse all

Length of meetings

Matthew Ball

Matthew Ball05-07-2009 19:18

  • 1.  Length of meetings

    Posted 05-07-2009 17:51 
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I believe it is clear that we do not achieve sufficient progress in a
one hour meeting.

Therefore, I propose we increase the meeting to two hours each week.

- --
Marcus Streets
Security Standards Officer

THALES Information Systems Security
nCipher product line

- ------------------------------------------------------
T:  +44 (0) 0123 723613 (Direct)
F:  +44 (0) 0123 723601
E:  Marcus.Streets@thales-esecurity.com
W:  www.ncipher.com

nCipher Corporation Limited is incorporated in England and Wales with
company registration number 3169278. Its registered office is located at
2 Dashwood Lang Road, The Bourne Business Park, Addlestone, Nr.
Weybridge, Surrey KT15 2NX.

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential. It may also be
privileged. It is only intended for the stated addressee(s) and access
to it by any other person is unauthorised. If you are not an addressee
or the intended addressee, you must not disclose, copy, circulate or in
any other way use or rely on the information contained in this e-mail.
Such unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail
in error please delete it (and all copies) from your system, please also
inform us immediately on +44 (0)1223 723600 or email sales@ncipher.com.
Commercial matters detailed or referred to in this e-mail are subject to
a written contract signed for and on behalf of nCipher Corporation Limited.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkoDH38ACgkQCp9YDVcX2tchpgCfaAOkD2kHFrtKtlTQhvWfYtvo
elMAnj6azGQgdW5s4x62irrttYxyemPJ
=MVk2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  • 2.  RE: [kmip] Length of meetings

    Posted 05-07-2009 18:16 
    I have sat through lots of 2-hour meetings in IEEE1619.3, with a very
similar degree of progress :)

cheers,

/thomas/


> 
    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 3.  Re: [kmip] Length of meetings

    Posted 05-07-2009 19:18
      |   view attached

    Attachment(s)

    vcf
    matthew_ball.vcf   330 B 1 version


  • 4.  RE: [kmip] Length of meetings

    Posted 05-07-2009 19:30 
    




    Hello all,
    

     
    

    I would support having a well planned 2-hour meeting, every 
2 weeks.  Simply adding another hour every week will not by itself improve 
our productivity, and will further impact all of our personal calendars.  I 
do fully support Matt's suggestions 1 through 4.
    

     
    

    Regards,
    

    Steve Wierenga
    

    HP

    

    

    
From: Matthew.Ball@Sun.COM 
[mailto:Matthew.Ball@Sun.COM]
    Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 12:18 
PM
    To: kmip@lists.oasis-open.org
    Subject: Re: [kmip] Length 
of meetings

    

    Hi Folks,

    I think scheduling 2 hours is also a good 
idea.  As the group gets larger, it becomes necessary to extend the meeting 
length just because the procedural portions (taking attendance, roll call votes, 
etc) also get longer.  Plus the work load usually increases.

    I'm 
unhappy that we only got through one item today, and doubly so that it was 
partly my fault.  The group is still pretty new, and I think we're still 
trying to find the efficiency point.  Early in the alignment discussion, 
someone suggested that we immediately start an electronic ballot and get the 
issue over with.  In retrospect, that would have been more expedient, 
although I think we had some useful dialog on the pros/cons of 32-bit vs 
64-bit.

    I dislike meetings that go down a rat hole as much as the rest of 
you, and hope that we can learn (possibly through some trial-and-error) the 
processes that keep the meetings efficient.  Here are some of my thoughts 
on how we can keep the meetings lean-and-mean:
    

      
  
    1. Post agendas and (mostly) stick to them
      
  
    2. Streamline the taking of attendance:  I'm hoping that we can find a 
  fast way to use WebEx to create the initial attendee list and avoid phone roll 
  calls.  Ideally, we could use a Kavi tool to take attendance 
  automatically (does OASIS support this?).
      
  
    3. During review of action items, only discuss status of the action items, 
  not the item itself.  Otherwise, you may never get status updates on the 
  other action items, or get Liaison reports and such... :)
      
  
    4. Adopt a policy of requiring all proposals to go to a 7-day electronic 
  ballot before adoption by the committee and inclusion into the draft.  I 
  learned this while fumbling through about 3 different revisions of the main 
  motion in today's meeting.  This was made clear when a whole bunch of new 
  objections were raised when the motion was changed from "requiring 64-bit 
  alignment of the value field" to "adopt the 64-bit proposal".  I'm 
  assuming that most of the objections were because the members did not have 
  ample time to review the proposal.  By doing a 7-day electronic ballot, 
  this provides time for a review. 
    Thoughts?  It always takes a 
little bit of time to figure out the group dynamic, but I think that after we 
get the mechanics down to a well-oiled machine we'll be able to make progress 
very quickly.

    Cheers,
    -Matt

    Marcus Streets wrote:
    

    I believe it is clear that we do not achieve 
  sufficient progress in a
    one hour meeting.

    Therefore, I propose we 
  increase the meeting to two hours each 
week.


    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    To 
unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
    generates 
this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
    https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php


  • 5.  RE: [kmip] Length of meetings

    Posted 05-08-2009 12:28 
    I worry that the 2 week break will cause action items not to be completed causing delays, so would like to continue on the current schedule for now, since this is only the second meeting we are still working out logistics.

    
Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122

    
"Wierenga, Steven" ---05/07/2009 02:30:28 PM---Hello all,

    


    


    
From:
    
"Wierenga, Steven" <steve.wierenga@hp.com>
    



    
To:
    
"Matthew.Ball@Sun.COM" <Matthew.Ball@Sun.COM>, "kmip@lists.oasis-open.org" <kmip@lists.oasis-open.org>
    



    
Date:
    
05/07/2009 02:30 PM
    



    
Subject:
    
RE: [kmip] Length of meetings
    

    




    
Hello all,
    
 
    
I would support having a well planned 2-hour meeting, every 2 weeks.  Simply adding another hour every week will not by itself improve our productivity, and will further impact all of our personal calendars.  I do fully support Matt's suggestions 1 through 4.
    
 
    
Regards,
    
Steve Wierenga
    
HP

    

    From: Matthew.Ball@Sun.COM [mailto:Matthew.Ball@Sun.COM] 
    
Sent:     Thursday, May 07, 2009 12:18 PM
    
To:     kmip@lists.oasis-open.org
    
Subject:     Re: [kmip] Length of meetings
    

    
Hi Folks,

    
I think scheduling 2 hours is also a good idea.  As the group gets larger, it becomes necessary to extend the meeting length just because the procedural portions (taking attendance, roll call votes, etc) also get longer.  Plus the work load usually increases.

    
I'm unhappy that we only got through one item today, and doubly so that it was partly my fault.  The group is still pretty new, and I think we're still trying to find the efficiency point.  Early in the alignment discussion, someone suggested that we immediately start an electronic ballot and get the issue over with.  In retrospect, that would have been more expedient, although I think we had some useful dialog on the pros/cons of 32-bit vs 64-bit.

    
I dislike meetings that go down a rat hole as much as the rest of you, and hope that we can learn (possibly through some trial-and-error) the processes that keep the meetings efficient.  Here are some of my thoughts on how we can keep the meetings lean-and-mean:    

      1.	Post agendas and (mostly) stick to them
      
2.	Streamline the taking of attendance:  I'm hoping that we can find a fast way to use WebEx to create the initial attendee list and avoid phone roll calls.  Ideally, we could use a Kavi tool to take attendance automatically (does OASIS support this?).
      
3.	During review of action items, only discuss status of the action items, not the item itself.  Otherwise, you may never get status updates on the other action items, or get Liaison reports and such... :)
      
4.	Adopt a policy of requiring all proposals to go to a 7-day electronic ballot before adoption by the committee and inclusion into the draft.  I learned this while fumbling through about 3 different revisions of the main motion in today's meeting.  This was made clear when a whole bunch of new objections were raised when the motion was changed from "requiring 64-bit alignment of the value field" to "adopt the 64-bit proposal".  I'm assuming that most of the objections were because the members did not have ample time to review the proposal.  By doing a 7-day electronic ballot, this provides time for a review. 
    
Thoughts?  It always takes a little bit of time to figure out the group dynamic, but I think that after we get the mechanics down to a well-oiled machine we'll be able to make progress very quickly.

    
Cheers,
    
-Matt

    
Marcus Streets wrote:    

      

        I believe it is clear that we do not achieve sufficient progress in a
        
one hour meeting.

        
Therefore, I propose we increase the meeting to two hours each week.
        

      

    

    
---------------------------------------------------------------------
    
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
    
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
    
    https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php


  • 6.  RE: [kmip] Length of meetings

    Posted 05-13-2009 15:57 
    




    I agree with 2 hours every two weeks and Matt's suggestions 
as well.  This will give more time to discuss the items and less 
time doing roll calls/week.
    

     
    

    Thanks,
    

    Scott

    

    

    
From: Wierenga, Steven 
[mailto:steve.wierenga@hp.com]
    Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 2:30 
PM
    To: Matthew.Ball@Sun.COM; 
kmip@lists.oasis-open.org
    Subject: RE: [kmip] Length of 
meetings

    

    

    Hello all,
    

     
    

    I would support having a well planned 2-hour meeting, every 
2 weeks.  Simply adding another hour every week will not by itself improve 
our productivity, and will further impact all of our personal calendars.  I 
do fully support Matt's suggestions 1 through 4.
    

     
    

    Regards,
    

    Steve Wierenga
    

    HP

    

    

    
From: Matthew.Ball@Sun.COM 
[mailto:Matthew.Ball@Sun.COM]
    Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 12:18 
PM
    To: kmip@lists.oasis-open.org
    Subject: Re: [kmip] Length 
of meetings

    

    Hi Folks,

    I think scheduling 2 hours is also a good 
idea.  As the group gets larger, it becomes necessary to extend the meeting 
length just because the procedural portions (taking attendance, roll call votes, 
etc) also get longer.  Plus the work load usually increases.

    I'm 
unhappy that we only got through one item today, and doubly so that it was 
partly my fault.  The group is still pretty new, and I think we're still 
trying to find the efficiency point.  Early in the alignment discussion, 
someone suggested that we immediately start an electronic ballot and get the 
issue over with.  In retrospect, that would have been more expedient, 
although I think we had some useful dialog on the pros/cons of 32-bit vs 
64-bit.

    I dislike meetings that go down a rat hole as much as the rest of 
you, and hope that we can learn (possibly through some trial-and-error) the 
processes that keep the meetings efficient.  Here are some of my thoughts 
on how we can keep the meetings lean-and-mean:
    

      
  
    1. Post agendas and (mostly) stick to them
      
  
    2. Streamline the taking of attendance:  I'm hoping that we can find a 
  fast way to use WebEx to create the initial attendee list and avoid phone roll 
  calls.  Ideally, we could use a Kavi tool to take attendance 
  automatically (does OASIS support this?).
      
  
    3. During review of action items, only discuss status of the action items, 
  not the item itself.  Otherwise, you may never get status updates on the 
  other action items, or get Liaison reports and such... :)
      
  
    4. Adopt a policy of requiring all proposals to go to a 7-day electronic 
  ballot before adoption by the committee and inclusion into the draft.  I 
  learned this while fumbling through about 3 different revisions of the main 
  motion in today's meeting.  This was made clear when a whole bunch of new 
  objections were raised when the motion was changed from "requiring 64-bit 
  alignment of the value field" to "adopt the 64-bit proposal".  I'm 
  assuming that most of the objections were because the members did not have 
  ample time to review the proposal.  By doing a 7-day electronic ballot, 
  this provides time for a review. 
    Thoughts?  It always takes a 
little bit of time to figure out the group dynamic, but I think that after we 
get the mechanics down to a well-oiled machine we'll be able to make progress 
very quickly.

    Cheers,
    -Matt

    Marcus Streets wrote:
    

    I believe it is clear that we do not achieve 
  sufficient progress in a
    one hour meeting.

    Therefore, I propose we 
  increase the meeting to two hours each 
week.


    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    To 
unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
    generates 
this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
    https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php


  • 7.  RE: [kmip] Length of meetings

    Posted 05-07-2009 20:19 
    




    I would agree, Matt.  My preference would be 2-hours 
every two weeks, which would provide ample time in between meetings to review 
material.  An example flow that has worked well in other standards groups 
is:
    

     
    

    

    1     Opening remarks/roll 
call
    

    2     Approval of the 
Agenda
    

    3     Approval of previous 
meeting minutes
    

    4     Review of action 
items:
    

    ·         
status of each item is 
either a carryover or closed; 
    

    ·         
if an action item involves 
creating a proposal, then the action item is closed upon delivery of the first 
draft of the proposal, since it then 
first becomes a new business item, followed by becoming an old business item if 
it is not successfully approved the first 
time (i.e, it is carried as an agenda item instead of an action item; 
action items track things to do, 
agenda items track discussions/proposals to 
consider/vote on).
    

    5     Old 
Business
    

    5.1   (old business item 
1)
    

    5.2   (old business item 
2)
    

    5.3   (etc)
    

    6     New 
Business
    

    6.1   (new business item 
1)
    

    6.2   (new business item 
2)
    

    6.3   (etc)
    

    7     Next Meeting 
Requirements (optional)
    

    8     Review New Action Items 

    

    9     
Adjournment
    

    

    It is also very helpful if 
proposals against a standard are numbered and include a revision number (e.g., 
v0, v1, etc), so the agenda can accurately reflect what is being reviewed.  It doesn’t appear that OASIS/KMIP has a 
document numbering tool, so I’m not sure how proposals can be sequenced other 
than by name and revision as posted.
    

    

    As an example, your action item 
for creating an alignment proposal would be closed now, and we’d have an agenda 
item to review your actual proposal against the standard.  It would be helpful if there was just 
one proposal (e.g., either the 32-bit or the 64-bit or something) to consider 
and discuss.  Based on the 
discussion, you may receive feedback to revise and post (and remain an agenda 
item) until a clear consensus is reached to warrant a motion for incorporation 
into the standard.  Given the large 
group, someone could decide to move on a revision that seemed acceptable enough 
to pass a vote (whether on the call or electronic doesn’t matter so much).  There may not be unanimous support for every 
proposal.
    

    

    There can be agenda items that 
seek guidance on a direction to pursue in drafting an actual proposal, which 
could result in “group” action items to provide input to the requestor (e.g., 
32-bit vs. 64-bit, or use of application specific identifiers).  But usually agenda items end up being 
draft changes to the standard to consider (e.g., new sections, edits, etc).
    

    

    Just some thoughts (since you asked).
    

     
    

    Rod Wideman
    

    Quantum
    

     
    

     

    

    

    
From: Matthew.Ball@Sun.COM 
[mailto:Matthew.Ball@Sun.COM]
    Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 2:18 
PM
    To: kmip@lists.oasis-open.org
    Subject: Re: [kmip] Length 
of meetings

    

    Hi Folks,

    I think scheduling 2 hours is also a good 
idea.  As the group gets larger, it becomes necessary to extend the meeting 
length just because the procedural portions (taking attendance, roll call votes, 
etc) also get longer.  Plus the work load usually increases.

    I'm 
unhappy that we only got through one item today, and doubly so that it was 
partly my fault.  The group is still pretty new, and I think we're still 
trying to find the efficiency point.  Early in the alignment discussion, 
someone suggested that we immediately start an electronic ballot and get the 
issue over with.  In retrospect, that would have been more expedient, 
although I think we had some useful dialog on the pros/cons of 32-bit vs 
64-bit.

    I dislike meetings that go down a rat hole as much as the rest of 
you, and hope that we can learn (possibly through some trial-and-error) the 
processes that keep the meetings efficient.  Here are some of my thoughts 
on how we can keep the meetings lean-and-mean:
    

      
  
    1. Post agendas and (mostly) stick to them
      
  
    2. Streamline the taking of attendance:  I'm hoping that we can find a 
  fast way to use WebEx to create the initial attendee list and avoid phone roll 
  calls.  Ideally, we could use a Kavi tool to take attendance 
  automatically (does OASIS support this?).
      
  
    3. During review of action items, only discuss status of the action items, 
  not the item itself.  Otherwise, you may never get status updates on the 
  other action items, or get Liaison reports and such... :)
      
  
    4. Adopt a policy of requiring all proposals to go to a 7-day electronic 
  ballot before adoption by the committee and inclusion into the draft.  I 
  learned this while fumbling through about 3 different revisions of the main 
  motion in today's meeting.  This was made clear when a whole bunch of new 
  objections were raised when the motion was changed from "requiring 64-bit 
  alignment of the value field" to "adopt the 64-bit proposal".  I'm 
  assuming that most of the objections were because the members did not have 
  ample time to review the proposal.  By doing a 7-day electronic ballot, 
  this provides time for a review. 
    Thoughts?  It always takes a 
little bit of time to figure out the group dynamic, but I think that after we 
get the mechanics down to a well-oiled machine we'll be able to make progress 
very quickly.

    Cheers,
    -Matt

    Marcus Streets wrote:
    

    I believe it is clear that we do not achieve 
  sufficient progress in a
    one hour meeting.

    Therefore, I propose we 
  increase the meeting to two hours each 
week.


    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    To 
unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
    generates 
this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
    https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php



    
The information contained in this transmission may be confidential. Any disclosure, copying, or further distribution of confidential information is not permitted unless such privilege is explicitly granted in writing by Quantum Corporation. Furthermore, Quantum Corporation is not responsible for the proper and complete transmission of the substance of this communication or for any delay in its receipt.


  • 8.  RE: [kmip] Length of meetings

    Posted 05-07-2009 22:11 
    Every 2 weeks would be more conducive to 7-day electronic ballots.

I'm not sold on requiring web access to take attendance: some of us are
joining during commute time and may not have web access immediately
available. If the mtg is 2 hours in length, do you leave the login window
open the entire time to record attendance?

fwiw.

-ben

On Thu, May 7, 2009 4:18 pm, Rod Wideman wrote:
> I would agree, Matt.  My preference would be 2-hours every two weeks,
> which would provide ample time in between meetings to review material.
> An example flow that has worked well in other standards groups is:
>
> 1     Opening remarks/roll call
>
> 2     Approval of the Agenda
>
> 3     Approval of previous meeting minutes
>
> 4     Review of action items:
>
> *         status of each item is either a carryover or closed;
>
> *         if an action item involves creating a proposal, then the
> action item is closed upon delivery of the first draft of the proposal,
> since it then first becomes a new business item, followed by becoming an
> old business item if it is not successfully approved the first time
> (i.e, it is carried as an agenda item instead of an action item; action
> items track things to do, agenda items track discussions/proposals to
> consider/vote on).
>
> 5     Old Business
>
> 5.1   (old business item 1)
>
> 5.2   (old business item 2)
>
> 5.3   (etc)
>
> 6     New Business
>
> 6.1   (new business item 1)
>
> 6.2   (new business item 2)
>
> 6.3   (etc)
>
> 7     Next Meeting Requirements (optional)
>
> 8     Review New Action Items
>
> 9     Adjournment
>
>
>
> It is also very helpful if proposals against a standard are numbered and
> include a revision number (e.g., v0, v1, etc), so the agenda can
> accurately reflect what is being reviewed.  It doesn't appear that
> OASIS/KMIP has a document numbering tool, so I'm not sure how proposals
> can be sequenced other than by name and revision as posted.
>
>
>
> As an example, your action item for creating an alignment proposal would
> be closed now, and we'd have an agenda item to review your actual
> proposal against the standard.  It would be helpful if there was just
> one proposal (e.g., either the 32-bit or the 64-bit or something) to
> consider and discuss.  Based on the discussion, you may receive feedback
> to revise and post (and remain an agenda item) until a clear consensus
> is reached to warrant a motion for incorporation into the standard.
> Given the large group, someone could decide to move on a revision that
> seemed acceptable enough to pass a vote (whether on the call or
> electronic doesn't matter so much).  There may not be unanimous support
> for every proposal.
>
>
>
> There can be agenda items that seek guidance on a direction to pursue in
> drafting an actual proposal, which could result in "group" action items
> to provide input to the requestor (e.g., 32-bit vs. 64-bit, or use of
> application specific identifiers).  But usually agenda items end up
> being draft changes to the standard to consider (e.g., new sections,
> edits, etc).
>
>
>
> Just some thoughts (since you asked).
>
>
> Rod Wideman
> Quantum
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Matthew.Ball@Sun.COM [mailto:Matthew.Ball@Sun.COM]
> Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 2:18 PM
> To: kmip@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [kmip] Length of meetings
>
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> I think scheduling 2 hours is also a good idea.  As the group gets
> larger, it becomes necessary to extend the meeting length just because
> the procedural portions (taking attendance, roll call votes, etc) also
> get longer.  Plus the work load usually increases.
>
> I'm unhappy that we only got through one item today, and doubly so that
> it was partly my fault.  The group is still pretty new, and I think
> we're still trying to find the efficiency point.  Early in the alignment
> discussion, someone suggested that we immediately start an electronic
> ballot and get the issue over with.  In retrospect, that would have been
> more expedient, although I think we had some useful dialog on the
> pros/cons of 32-bit vs 64-bit.
>
> I dislike meetings that go down a rat hole as much as the rest of you,
> and hope that we can learn (possibly through some trial-and-error) the
> processes that keep the meetings efficient.  Here are some of my
> thoughts on how we can keep the meetings lean-and-mean:
>
>
> 1.	Post agendas and (mostly) stick to them
>
> 2.	Streamline the taking of attendance:  I'm hoping that we can
> find a fast way to use WebEx to create the initial attendee list and
> avoid phone roll calls.  Ideally, we could use a Kavi tool to take
> attendance automatically (does OASIS support this?).
>
> 3.	During review of action items, only discuss status of the action
> items, not the item itself.  Otherwise, you may never get status updates
> on the other action items, or get Liaison reports and such... :)
>
> 4.	Adopt a policy of requiring all proposals to go to a 7-day
> electronic ballot before adoption by the committee and inclusion into
> the draft.  I learned this while fumbling through about 3 different
> revisions of the main motion in today's meeting.  This was made clear
> when a whole bunch of new objections were raised when the motion was
> changed from "requiring 64-bit alignment of the value field" to "adopt
> the 64-bit proposal".  I'm assuming that most of the objections were
> because the members did not have ample time to review the proposal.  By
> doing a 7-day electronic ballot, this provides time for a review.
>
> Thoughts?  It always takes a little bit of time to figure out the group
> dynamic, but I think that after we get the mechanics down to a
> well-oiled machine we'll be able to make progress very quickly.
>
> Cheers,
> -Matt
>
> Marcus Streets wrote:
>
>
> 	I believe it is clear that we do not achieve sufficient progress
> in a
> 	one hour meeting.
>
> 	Therefore, I propose we increase the meeting to two hours each
> week.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> The information contained in this transmission may be
> confidential. Any disclosure, copying, or further
> distribution of confidential information is not permitted
> unless such privilege is explicitly granted in writing by
> Quantum Corporation. Furthermore, Quantum Corporation is not
> responsible for the proper and complete transmission of the
> substance of this communication or for any delay in its
> receipt.
> ------------------------------------------------------------


-- 
Benjamin Tomhave, MS, CISSP
Blog: http://www.secureconsulting.net/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/falconsview
LI: http://www.linkedin.com/in/btomhave


"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization,
it expects what never was and never will be."
 --Thomas Jefferson


  • 9.  Re: [kmip] Length of meetings

    Posted 05-08-2009 12:44 
    I want to repeat an observation from last week. I think it would be a  
more effective use of everyone's time to do as many things on the web  
as possible. We can easily discuss things on this list, do voting or  
at least straw polls, and so on.

The real thing we want to do is to use time effectively as well as  
maintain momentum. I think we can do that by shifting away from phone  
calls the things that don't have to be done on the phone calls. Last's  
week's discussion showed that it is within the rules to do so, we just  
need to do it.

	Jon


  • 10.  RE: [kmip] Length of meetings

    Posted 05-08-2009 13:02 
    As an example, the WebEx system I use allows participants to come and go; you can log into the meeting anytime it is running. However, it is a bit difficult for the secretary to watch the list as people come and go. I think the best policy is that if you arrive late and want to be counted toward the attendance, you need to announce yourself to the secretary.

-Walt

--

Walt Hubis
Software Architect
Engenio Storage Group

LSI Corporation
5400 Airport Blvd Ste 100
Boulder, CO 80301 USA
Phone: (303) 381-4332
Mobile: (303) 641-8528
walt.hubis@lsi.com
http://www.lsi.com

    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 11.  Re: [kmip] Length of meetings

    Posted 05-08-2009 13:33 
    Hi everyone,

   I just wanted to make sure to let everyone know proper Robert's  
Rules procedure - Roll Call must be taken at the start of the meeting.  
The Chair or Secretary calls the roll, and each person on the call  
must identify themselves.

Best regards,

Mary

Mary P McRae
Director, Standards Development
Technical Committee Administrator
OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society
email: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
web: www.oasis-open.org
twitter: fiberartisan  #oasisopen
phone: 1.603.232.9090

Standards are like parachutes: they work best when they're open.








On May 8, 2009, at 9:01 AM, Hubis, Walt wrote:

> As an example, the WebEx system I use allows participants to come  
> and go; you can log into the meeting anytime it is running. However,  
> it is a bit difficult for the secretary to watch the list as people  
> come and go. I think the best policy is that if you arrive late and  
> want to be counted toward the attendance, you need to announce  
> yourself to the secretary.
>
> -Walt
>
> --
>
> Walt Hubis
> Software Architect
> Engenio Storage Group
>
> LSI Corporation
> 5400 Airport Blvd Ste 100
> Boulder, CO 80301 USA
> Phone: (303) 381-4332
> Mobile: (303) 641-8528
> walt.hubis@lsi.com
> http://www.lsi.com
> 
    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 12.  RE: [kmip] Length of meetings

    Posted 05-08-2009 13:44 
    +1 to the proposal of 2 hrs every 2 weeks.

+1 on not relying on web access for attendance. The secretary has enough
to do without monitoring who's coming and going, plus if you are on the
road, it's often not feasible.  I would amend the proposed agenda below
to add a final roll check before adjournment to ask for anyone that
missed the initial roll call.  

You can play it by ear I guess and have folks announce themselves if
they join late, but if it happens much, it becomes a bit disruptive.  If
you miss both the initial roll call and have to leave the meeting before
the end, an exception in this case is reasonable as long as it doesn't
happen all the time.  One other exception is that if there is any
official votes requiring a roll-call during the meeting, you could
announce yourself at that time.

As Mary points out, technically, you must "prove" you are attending via
voice at the beginning of the call.  An email message or an IM to the
chair & secretary during the meeting isn't really "proof", but it can
also work in some cases (e.g. you include some context from the current
meeting discussion in your note). Logistically, in other TC's we've just
gotten in the habit of checking again at the end to catch any late
arrivers.

Rob Philpott 
RSA, the Security Division of EMC
Senior Technologist | e-Mail: robert.philpott@rsa.com | Office: (781)
515-7115 | Mobile: (617) 510-0893


> 
    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 13.  Re: [kmip] Length of meetings

    Posted 05-08-2009 16:10 
    On 2009-May-08, at 06:33, Mary McRae wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
>  I just wanted to make sure to let everyone know proper Robert's  
> Rules procedure - Roll Call must be taken at the start of the  
> meeting. The Chair or Secretary calls the roll, and each person on  
> the call must identify themselves.


While there may be some organizational rule that mandates the  
inefficient practice of always having a full formal verbal roll call,  
there is nothing under Robert's Rules of Order that mandates that the  
secretary call role in the way we do so now.

Our current, inefficient method:

	The secretary (as the appointed attendance clerk) reads off names and  
people attempt to say something shortly after their name

is very likely not strictly a roll call under Robert's Rules of Order  
because those who respond to their name are NOT acknowledged.  Nobody  
on the call is able to know if, when a name is called and they hear  
nothing, if that person was not counted as present, or if they simply  
failed to hear the person respond (but the secretary did), or if the  
person attempted to respond to their name and failed (because of  
noise, or they did not un-mute their line).  Indeed the current method  
falls short because when your name is called, you have NO WAY to know  
if you were heard until after the attendance is published.  It is  
improper to have a formal attendance call where those present do not  
have a definitive way to determine who is and who is not present.

And while I do not recommend this method: If we were following a  
strict formal attendance call by voice only:

	the secretary (as the appointed attendance clerk) would read off a  
member name
		"John Doe"
	if the secretary (as the appointed attendance clerk) hears the member  
respond, then the secretary announces:
		"John Doe is present"
	else the secretary (as the appointed attendance clerk) on not hearing  
a response repeats the member name:
		"John Doe"
	if the secretary (as the appointed attendance clerk) hears the member  
respond to the second call, then the secretary announces:
		"John Doe is present"
	else secretary announces:
		"John Doe is not present"

The above would be a waste of time.

There are plenty of parliamentary bodies operating under Robert's  
Rules of Order where both attendance and quorum are determined by some  
other means such as electronic sign-in.  I will point out that those  
bodies have fallback procedures for when the optimized attendance  
method (say electronic sign-in) fails, or an individual member  
requests to be recognized (say because they are unable or unwilling to  
use the electronic sign-in).

Under Robert's Rules of Order, there could be a roll call such as:

	The chair requests members to sign-in on WebEx to do so now if  
possible,
	and then the secretary reads off the names of members listed WebEx.
	and then the chair asked those names were not called out to identify  
themselves
		and the secretary acknowledges each member who verbally identify  
themselves

The above method does meet requirements for a attendance clerk call  
call in that everyone can determine who is and is not here, and  
everyone present can determine if they have been properly identified  
as being present.

chongo (Landon Curt Noll) /\oo/\


  • 14.  Re: [kmip] Length of meetings

    Posted 05-08-2009 18:01 
    Mary McRae wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
>   I just wanted to make sure to let everyone know proper Robert's Rules 
> procedure - Roll Call must be taken at the start of the meeting. The 
> Chair or Secretary calls the roll, and each person on the call must 
> identify themselves.
> 

I know that the Kavi tools (which we also use in TCG) can provide a 
"Record my attendance" link on the event page for participants to sign 
in at the start of the meeting. Is that an acceptable roll call method?

	Scott

-- 
Scott Rotondo
Principal Engineer, Solaris Security Technologies
President, Trusted Computing Group
Phone/FAX: +1 408 850 3655 (Internal x68278)


  • 15.  Re: [kmip] Length of meetings

    Posted 05-08-2009 22:11 
    Hi Scott,

   We are using a very old version of Kavi which does not have this  
feature; it also still requires someone to be online during the call,  
which is not always the case.

Regards,

Mary

Mary P McRae
Director, Standards Development
Technical Committee Administrator
OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society
email: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
web: www.oasis-open.org
twitter: fiberartisan  #oasisopen
phone: 1.603.232.9090

Standards are like parachutes: they work best when they're open.








On May 8, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Scott Rotondo wrote:

> Mary McRae wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>  I just wanted to make sure to let everyone know proper Robert's  
>> Rules procedure - Roll Call must be taken at the start of the  
>> meeting. The Chair or Secretary calls the roll, and each person on  
>> the call must identify themselves.
>
> I know that the Kavi tools (which we also use in TCG) can provide a  
> "Record my attendance" link on the event page for participants to  
> sign in at the start of the meeting. Is that an acceptable roll call  
> method?
>
> 	Scott
>
> -- 
> Scott Rotondo
> Principal Engineer, Solaris Security Technologies
> President, Trusted Computing Group
> Phone/FAX: +1 408 850 3655 (Internal x68278)


  • 16.  RE: [kmip] Length of meetings

    Posted 05-07-2009 20:52 
    










    


    I’m sure we’ll work out the process as we move forward,
though I’m uncertain longer meetings are the answer.    
    


    Things we could consider…
    


    -         
I only recognize 6-10 voices (our co-chairs and 6 of the more
vocal folks), when you get the floor please state your name before proceeding 
(additionally this will help Subhash with minutes).
    


    -         
With 40 or so potentially active people, getting the floor
and having a meaningful dialog may be a challenge.  
    


    -         
Is the http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/kmip
included in the meeting invite officially sanctioned by
OASIS?  If so, should we use this to record attendance and acquiring the floor
(maybe even con call voting)?
    


    -         
We should continue to use the WebEx to point out areas during
the doc discussion.
    


    -         
Any motion which potentially impacts the core spec, or
requires review should be put to a 7 day electronic ballot.
    


    


    Regards,
    


    


    Tom
    


    


    


    


    


    From: Matthew.Ball@Sun.COM
[mailto:Matthew.Ball@Sun.COM]
    
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 2:18 PM
    
To: kmip@lists.oasis-open.org
    
Subject: Re: [kmip] Length of meetings
    


    


    


    


    Hi Folks,

    
I think scheduling 2 hours is also a good idea.  As the group gets larger,
it becomes necessary to extend the meeting length just because the procedural
portions (taking attendance, roll call votes, etc) also get longer.  Plus
the work load usually increases.

    
I'm unhappy that we only got through one item today, and doubly so that it was
partly my fault.  The group is still pretty new, and I think we're still
trying to find the efficiency point.  Early in the alignment discussion,
someone suggested that we immediately start an electronic ballot and get the
issue over with.  In retrospect, that would have been more expedient,
although I think we had some useful dialog on the pros/cons of 32-bit vs
64-bit.

    
I dislike meetings that go down a rat hole as much as the rest of you, and hope
that we can learn (possibly through some trial-and-error) the processes that
keep the meetings efficient.  Here are some of my thoughts on how we can
keep the meetings lean-and-mean:
    


      
 
    1. Post agendas and (mostly) stick to them
      2. 
 
    2. Streamline the taking of attendance:  I'm
     hoping that we can find a fast way to use WebEx to create the initial
     attendee list and avoid phone roll calls.  Ideally, we could use a
     Kavi tool to take attendance automatically (does OASIS support this?).
      3. 
 
    3. During review of action items, only discuss
     status of the action items, not the item itself.  Otherwise, you may
     never get status updates on the other action items, or get Liaison reports
     and such... :)
      4. 
 
    4. Adopt a policy of requiring all proposals to go
     to a 7-day electronic ballot before adoption by the committee and
     inclusion into the draft.  I learned this while fumbling through
     about 3 different revisions of the main motion in today's meeting. 
     This was made clear when a whole bunch of new objections were raised when
     the motion was changed from "requiring 64-bit alignment of the value
     field" to "adopt the 64-bit proposal".  I'm assuming
     that most of the objections were because the members did not have ample
     time to review the proposal.  By doing a 7-day electronic ballot,
     this provides time for a review.
      5. 

    


    Thoughts?  It always takes a little bit of time to
figure out the group dynamic, but I think that after we get the mechanics down
to a well-oiled machine we'll be able to make progress very quickly.

    
Cheers,
    
-Matt

    
Marcus Streets wrote:

    

    


    I believe it is clear that we
do not achieve sufficient progress in a
    
one hour meeting.

    
Therefore, I propose we increase the meeting to two hours each week.
    



    
---------------------------------------------------------------------
    
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
    
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
    
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php