Re: [irsg] WG Conflict Clarity

[Melinda Shore <[e-mail]>]

On 6/28/19 7:07 AM, Black, David wrote:
> This looks like a good idea, but seems to be missing something that
> could be rather useful when push comes to shove in dealing with
> conflicts  – a Doodle-like ability to tag each conflict as “unavoidable”
> vs. “If need be” [1].  The latter is for conflicts that are inconvenient
> but not fatal (e.g., as a chair of a multi-chair WG, I can step out for
> 10-15 minutes to go do/say something in another WG meeting if necessary,
> but that’s not preferable).

I think that that, unfortunately, is the sort of thing where
lack of absolute clarity about the terms has led to the current
situation, in which a few people mark things they're interested
in as high priority.

Scheduling seems to be becoming more and more difficult, and I'm
enthusiastic about the new policy.  It may need tweaking but I
think asking about the nature of the conflict rather than simply
identifying them will help ease agenda creation.

At a minimum it's worth giving a try, and if there turn out to
be more conflicts as a result of the experiment, it can be
tweaked or rolled back.

Melinda

-- 
Melinda Shore
[e-mail]

Software longa, hardware brevis