The question of trend is bothersome (are we all burnt out.. do our
companies not care about PWG stuff anymore...) But I think it
misleading and incorrect to draw any such conclusions. San Diego,
being adjacent to the Labor Day weekend, was just poor planning,
especially for anyone not in the vicinity. New York...well, I am not
sure what the problem is...perhaps it's fear of the big city.
Selection of sites is a periodic subject of conversation at the PWG,
and I am not sure we have done that much better for '97. I think
Harry's idea of a warehouse in New Jersey (or some similar modest and
consistent venue) has increasing merit.
Bill Wagner, DPI
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Should we discuss "quorum" for PWG meetings? -Reply
Author: Scott Isaacson <Scott_Isaacson at novell.com> at Internet
Date: 9/25/96 2:18 PM
You indicated that a "first" occurred after three years: significant poor
attendence of a large number of long time members attending. It would
be interesting to note why that event ocurred. Is it a trend? Is it a
coincidence? Is it an indication as to the interest level of what is going
on? The location is bad (a given)? I don't know the reason.
Your suggestions for better rules of order are VERY useful-
1. Document naming, notes naming, etc.
3. Decision process (chairman vs. quorum)
Again, I have no good experience or proposal, but feel like it is needed!
>>> JK Martin <jkm at underscore.com> 09/25/96 11:28am >>>
Everyone appears very busy right now, but it also appears that most
folks want to be able to attend the next meeting (wherever it is) if at
all possible. (Right? Wrong?)
The San Diego meeting minutes showed that, while overall attendance
pretty high, the number of long-time PWG participants was the lowest on
New participants are always welcome (please!), but it essential to have
strong attendance by those participants who have either been part of
the PWG for a couple of years (or more) and/or who have been strong
contributors of late. Attendance by these kinds of participants can
help guide the direction and process of discussions due to the
experience already gained. Does this seem like a reasonable
I mention this because it seems like it's about time we started talking
about what a "quorum" means to the PWG for its meetings. (For our
international friends: "quorum" is the term used to describe the
minimum number of people that need to be present for decisions to be
made at a meeting. Not a concise and complete definition, but it is
sufficient for this discussion.)
For the first time in its 3 year history (our third anniversary is
actually this month!), the PWG had an interesting situation arise at
last month's San Diego meeting, one that should be carefully considered
by the group as a whole.
At the San Diego meeting, the topic of moving the date for the November
PWG meeting was brought up and discussed. According to the minutes
(posted quite quickly after the meeting), the group had made the
decision to NOT move the date; however, shortly thereafter, a message
was posted to the mailing list stating that the group at the meeting
did indeed decide in favor of moving the meeting, and that the meeting
date was now officially moved.
The point is, the discussion of moving the meeting date was never
brought up for general discussion on the mailing list. Perhaps more
significant was the fact that so many long-time participants were
absent from the San Diego discussion and, hence, were not allowed to
provide input to the decision.
If setting some sort of quorum is not possible/desirable, then perhaps
we should at least mandate that key discussions be conducted on the
mailing list, with some sort of electronic voting mechanism used to
Hey, if nothing else, then doesn't it make sense to have a rule that
says no decision can be made on a topic that was introduced at the
same meeting? (Ok, ok, so the topic of "what's for lunch?" can be
brought up and decided right then and there... ;-)
What are the group's thoughts? Is this issue unimportant?