Re: Another teleconference partial edited transcript

On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 16:02:34 -0400 (EDT) Mike Harris wrote:
>
>On Sat, 12 Apr 2003, David Dawes wrote:
>
>>>There's nothing really private about it, at least not to my
>>
>>It is private simply because attendance is by private invitation.  I'm
>>sure that there are lots of people here who would like to take part,
>>and they are being cut out of your "process".
>
>I am merely a participant in the confcalls, and don't have any
>actual involvement in setting up the specific process behind the
>confcalls.
>
>I was invited to be on the call, and I accepted the invitation,
>as did many others.  I believe from the list of participants that
>attempts were made to try and contact people representative of
>various different groups out there, including XFree86.org.  No
>process is perfect however, so it is possible some group may have
>been overlooked perhaps.  If so, nobody at least to my knowledge
>has stepped forward claiming they're being left out of any
>process.
>
>I've only seen positive feedback from the community so far in
>response to the confcall transcriptions and minutes meetings.  I

mike - you've not read all the public responses (but that's understandable).

>encourage everyone to provide any kind of feedback however, no 
>matter what their opinions may be.
>
>Speaking out to everyone else out there:  Is any group of people
>out there feeling left out of the calls and not being
>represented?
>
>If so, I hope they please speak up and let everyone know they're
>here so that their voices can be heard and represented.  David,

X.Org is not represented. I do not know if any members have been 
individually invited. I wasn't.

Leon
 
>feel free to point out any groups of people you think are not
>being represented adequately on the phonecalls also, so that
>hopefully this issue that you've raised can hopefully be
>addressed, if there are in fact groups out there who feel their
>lack of presence leaves them unrepresented in the discussions.
>
>This will hopefully make sure nobody feels left out, and everyone 
>considers the confcalls as open as confcalls can be.
>
>
>>>In the spirit of openness, unless I'm mistaken you were also
>>>invited to participate on the last few calls, as has the XFree86
>>>board of directors however it's been unfortunate that none of you
>>>have been able to attend yet for whatever reasons.  Hopefully
>>
>>Well, you *are*  mistaken.  I have never received an invitation to
>>participate.
>
>My apologies, I seem to have misunderstood whom has been invited
>to the calls.  I thought someone had mentioned you had been
>sent an invitation to the last call or so.  My mistake.
>
>
>>The XFree86 BOD received an invitation to participate in the
>>call on Thursday, but with only three hours notice.  Not to
>>mention that the call was scheduled during normal working hours,
>>and all of the XFree86 BOD are volunteers who have day jobs.  
>
>I was not aware of that, however it is perfectly reasonable that
>nobody from the BOD was present if there was only 3 hours notice
>given to them.  Indeed people need time to agendize meetings,
>etc.  Hopefully next week someone from the BOD will be present if
>time schedules line up.  If not, perhaps someone on the BOD whom
>would like to participate can suggest a time that would be
>convenient for them to attend.
>
>
>>It is difficult to see how such an invitation could have been 
>>made in "good faith".
>
>Sounds to me more like a bit of disorganization from the side of
>the confcall setup than lack of good faith.  I doubt any of the
>people on the confcalls would say we suffer from
>over-organization.  ;o)
>
>It's not a perfect mechanism, but it is new and is loosly
>organized so far so there are likely to be bumps here and there.  
>Plus we're all volunteers too, which has caused the
>transcriptions and other things to get unfortunately delayed a
>few times now, including multi-round-trip email lag.  I'm sure
>you can understand and respect the unforseen delays and other
>organizational glitches that can occur when volunteers are
>working together on projects, delayed time schedules, etc.

Are you sure that these conferences are organized by "volunteers"?

>
>Perhaps next week we can discuss how to try and organize and 
>delegate things better.  I'll try to remember to bring that up.
>
>
>>But you've been around long enough to realise that you can use
>>manipulative statements like this to your advantage.  If I call
>>you out on your "mistakes", I'm seen as being defensive.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by that David.  By all means if I've
>made a mistake, such as I did above, please bring it to my
>attention and I'll try to address it as I did above.  I don't see
>you as being defensive above, although you do seem to be a bit
>upset.  Anyone can have a bad day now and then, myself included,
>so I'm not taking anything personally.  Quite to the contrary, I 
>am glad to get your feedback and to hear your concerns.
>
>
>>Do you wonder why some of us might be wary of attending a
>>private meeting when the mechanism for publishing it is also so
>>easy to manipulate?
>
>I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, but let me take a stab
>at it, and please correct me if I'm wrong as I definitely do not
>want to put words in your mouth.  If I read you correctly, you're
>concerned that because the confcall transcriptions receive
>editing, that if you participate you may get taken out of context
>or your words (or other people's words) may be manipulated in
>some way in order to mislead people without your approval or 
>review.  Does that sound accurate?
>
>If that is the case, that is definitely a legitimate concern that
>anyone might have who is on a call.  That is why the confcall
>transcripts have not been posted publically until everyone has
>had a chance to review them and provide typo cleanups, etc. and
>comment on them and be sure what is transcribed reflects the
>contents of the calls.
>
>Even though there has been a bit of disorganization with the
>calls, it has been done fairly well overall I believe, and I
>don't think anyone has been misrepresented.  Initially I
>personally thought that a meeting minutes would be more useful
>than a complete transcription, however many others thought a
>transcription was best as it would more adequately reflect the
>complete contents of the calls and would be a more "open" way of
>presenting to the community the full discussion of what
>discussion transpired on the phonecall.
>
>If either you and/or a BOD member were to participate in a call,
>you would have the same opportunity as everyone else on the call
>does to do the same typo corrections etc. to the transcriptions
>before they get published.  I would be rather upset if _anyone_
>on the calls were not represented in the transcriptions true to
>both their word, as well as their intended meaning.  Accuracy is
>very important.
>
>Does this adequately address your concerns?  If not, do you have
>any suggestions as to how your concerns might be addressed in a
>way you consider reasonable?
>
>Looking forward to seeing your participation in a future conf
>call if you are interested, and available to attend, as well as
>anyone else whom is representative of a group not currently being
>represented by someone already.
>
>Thanks again for your feedback and for conveying your concerns.
>
>Take care,
>TTYL
>
>-- 
>Mike A. Harris
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Forum mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/forum