[cabfpub] Draft Agenda for F2F meeting Research Triangle Park, NC - March 21-23

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Sun Feb 26 20:48:43 UTC 2017

On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Peter Bowen via Public <
public at cabforum.org> wrote:

> Kirk,
> It looks like Day 2 is mostly copied from the Redmond F2F agenda.  I don’t
> have an intention of repeating the topics I lead previously unless there
> are new things to cover.
> Thanks,
> Peter

Indeed, I was just about to suggest that for several of the other
(non-Peter) topics, unless there's something new to cover - and ideally,
discussed on the list prior - we shouldn't schedule those items either.

I also note that Day 1 limits the discussion of "Future Thoughts" to 45
minutes, although I would suggest and suspect that this is a line of
discussion that might easily occupy an hour and a half, if not more, as
members work through understanding the various goals of the suggestions,
and then try to map out possible paths towards those goals by articulating
concerns and constraints that they may have.

If I might, borrowing from an "unconference" like approach, might I suggest
that Day 1 gather the "Future Thoughts" as scheduled, and have a (brief)
discussion and presentation of those future thoughts (also as scheduled),
but we make use of time of Day 2 to actually explore and articulate how to
get there. This would allow time for members to socialize and understand
the items raised on Day 1, and then come back on Day 2 with a better sense
of concerns and directions. I suspect this will allow us a much more
productive discussion and figuring out next steps.

Alternatively, we could consider gathering those discussion items now,
prior to the meeting. Day 1 can include a summary of the items and themes
and allow time for basic clarification, and then we can dedicate several
discussion slots on Day 2 to explore those items identified as either
controversial or as shared interest, so that we can more rapidly make
progress. This might make it more productive then, say, if I were to
request several agenda slots for what Google considers as high importance
and future direction.

Another agenda item I might suggest, and I'm happy to be the 'discussion
leader' because of it, is the question about the role and relationship of
the Forum. Judging by the reactions to Ballot 185, and from various
questions that have come in on the questions@ list which have sparked
debate, perhaps it's worth revisiting how different members see the role
and scope of the Forum, so that we can better understand each other's
objectives and needs.

There also appears to be one or two agenda items previously discussed, but
missing. One was a retrospective discussion about the SHA-1 deprecation,
with input from various Browsers, to help capture and crystalize the
challenges and to examine some of the lessons learned from the SHA-1
exception process. Another was more targeted towards the technical members
of the Forum, which is related to workflow management (GitHub, production
of PDFs, etc), with the goal of making it less onerous on Ben to manage
that. I realize that the Forum has historically conducted a 'single track'
meeting schedule, there may be opportunity during the WG day to run that
exploration in parallel, if there's space available. My instinct is that
there may be sufficient non-overlap in members as the Governance
discussions, but as the agenda for Day 2 shapes out, there may be an
opportunity there instead.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170226/7f8d47d5/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Public mailing list