Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)

Melinda Shore <> Sun, 02 December 2012 18:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8CC921F86C4 for <>; Sun, 2 Dec 2012 10:06:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hsZcg5PbM9Co for <>; Sun, 2 Dec 2012 10:06:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B80221F8687 for <>; Sun, 2 Dec 2012 10:06:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id z20so892096dae.31 for <>; Sun, 02 Dec 2012 10:06:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=PdkRBAvzCueBfCBmUoqRlgX0URot3rIxfyTDE+B9dJs=; b=TiuCwR692wMG79xVrJ+IxJul5CMqO6+js207+syiiZL1oYXcN8XkJvo1DCPAHF27N+ rU8mxfqKZ7004wZWYMG3DK6ylf9GJ1h/F9IenwnO82rftXi/PkxfhzE5hAZwSsdKdNJy kPJlbdCHGuaX4BKj9ju2+OCF3qmtsxDzV1L2bprENOuM7iA52ns2ftjvZF3jqXy5hofx ldNcqciuqYfh37zi+jP/iGvn50r0RvjIigFkHNoU/u3LaUfg+gKbpsxFUxd06vGINcPK eaGiWkCIwPVkdpvU1Dv0jIGylBqMBVir5IA/1a7wkwFJLOVnz29jOQifMiPCkTJIN4zG TTRg==
Received: by with SMTP id tk2mr23001071pbc.92.1354471603145; Sun, 02 Dec 2012 10:06:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from spandex.local ( []) by with ESMTPS id nt5sm6620105pbb.59.2012. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 02 Dec 2012 10:06:42 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2012 09:06:40 -0900
From: Melinda Shore <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: PowerPoint considered harmful (was Re: Barely literate minutes)
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <00c001cdce7a$d9fa6490$8def2db0$> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <AEDAFA38A99E8B0E926BAC0F@JcK-HP8200.jck. com> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2012 18:06:44 -0000

On 12/2/12 8:58 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
> I'd add working group chairs (though I'm sure there are a few 
> exceptions) to the list of those with an apparent inability to 
> prioritize and structure work.   Or perhaps WGs should have to get 
> approval from their supervising AD before they can take on new
> documents.

There's a whole nexus of connected issues here, I think, and what
a given person complains about depends on that person's pet peeves.
It seems to me that if we were better about moving work forward
between meetings (<- peeve!) meeting time wouldn't be chewed up
with presenting the current state of the work.  I think design
teams are a handy tool for keeping things moving and have the
side-effect of potentially improving meeting quality.  I'll be the
first to admit the possibility of abuse/things going wrong but
I think keeping work moving is one of the keys to solving this

I know the EDU team is working hard and has a tough task, but
I also wonder if improving however it is that we acculturate
newer participants might not help, as well.  I would guess that
if you polled meeting participants you'd get a majority of
respondents thinking that meetings are for presentation and
that meetings are used for document adoption and document
content decisions.