Meetings

Jim McGrath jmcgrath at qntm.com
Wed Jul 6 20:32:57 PDT 1994


        Reply to:   RE>Meetings

Curtis,

I don't see the topic of meeting locations as being "political" - meetings
have to be approved this month in New Hamshire, and like any topic
requiring approval should be discussed on email first (to reduce
discussion in New Hamshire).

My problem is that I do not see how holding one meeting in, say, Houston
will get engagement from people at that site.  People may show
for that meeting, but if they are not showing now for San Jose
then they are very unlikely to follow the meeting to the next location.
For instance, anything you idscussed last week in Irvine will almost
certainly be discussed (and changed) at a subsequent non-Irvine
meeting.  In order to make sure things are as you want them, you will
have to travel to all the meetings.  I would suggest in that case that
day trips to San Jose would be easier for you.

If people only show for the meeting when it is in their location, then
far fewer people will attend every meeting consistently.  A high and
consistent attendence level is required in order to close out the last
stages of a standard (e.g. ATA-2).  As I mentioned, ATA-3 may be
different, but potentially revisiting every item at every meeting
because the people change is NOT a good way to get out of ATA-2
and into ATA-3.

Note that this is an argument for one site being the central site
for closing the standard work.  San Jose is a good choice for this
site because it IS the largest concentration of drive AND system
manufacturers in the country.   If you have to pick one site, it
is the best one.  The only real drawback is for people out east
(e.g. IBM folks), since the travel is real bad.  The only fallback
I can see there is to require everyone to travel to a central location
(e.g. Dallas or Chicago).  Note that the Fibre Channel people are
doing that (they use Denver).

Jim






More information about the T10 mailing list