RE: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)

"George, Wes" <> Mon, 03 December 2012 13:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46C0221F8639 for <>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 05:53:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.977
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.486, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m6uEU6-LbSDF for <>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 05:53:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF71721F85E2 for <>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 05:53:18 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,206,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="481684907"
Received: from unknown (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 03 Dec 2012 08:53:11 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 08:53:18 -0500
From: "George, Wes" <>
To: Melinda Shore <>, "" <>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 08:53:37 -0500
Subject: RE: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
Thread-Topic: Useful slide tex (was - Re: English spoken here)
Thread-Index: Ac3RE406ebxApz+4Rya/Vk14B4r99wAR7L2A
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <00c001cdce7a$d9fa6490$8def2db0$> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <50BC1658.7070901@network-heretics!.com> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 13:53:25 -0000

> From: [] On Behalf Of
> Melinda Shore
> it's kind of weird that we cut off discussion so that we can proceed to the
> next presentation.  It's done all the time (I've done it, myself) and
> while there's definitely a sense that we need to cover the material
> we've said we're going to cover in a meeting, why does breadth take
> priority over depth?

[WEG] I think this requires making a judgment call between a ratholed discussion, or an impasse between two strongly held opinions vs. meaningful progress. Sometimes the former and the latter masquerade as each other and are therefore mishandled.

Again, comes down to how the meeting is structured - do you prioritize a set of current drafts that need to have meaningful discussion, and accept the fact that presentations on new work might lose their timeslots if discussion runs long? I think that's an acceptable risk, especially since anyone who is technically on the agenda can build a presentation and have it be in the proceedings so that people can review after the meeting. I know I had more than one meeting where there were many valuable presentations, and a large number of them were added to the agenda with zero minutes allocated, so that they'd be ready if we had time to discuss them during the meeting once the priority discussions were completed, but also so they'd be in the proceedings when we didn't.

Wes George

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.