Thread Subject: FW:Recommendation:CommunicationsTaskForceConferenceCall

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Bailey Bruce
Date: Thu, Oct 12 2006 10:55 AM
Subject: FW:Recommendation:CommunicationsTaskForceConferenceCall

This did not post, trying again.

> Can we have someone put together a brief outline of the outstanding
> issues that need decisions?

http://teitac.org/wiki/Tools_concall

Feel free to add your own. I am running out for a sand width!

Jared, why is the message not attached to this message:
http://teitac.org/mailarchives/mail_message.php?id=160&listid=10

Are you aggressively dealing with top posting?

From: mike paciello
Date: Thu, Oct 12 2006 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: FW:Recommendation:CommunicationsTaskForceConferenceCall

Thanks Bruce.

Looks like we'll have just about everyone available.

- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Bailey Bruce
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:51 PM
To: TEITAC Communications Task Force
Subject: [teitac-tools]
FW:Recommendation:CommunicationsTaskForceConferenceCall

This did not post, trying again.

> Can we have someone put together a brief outline of the outstanding
> issues that need decisions?

http://teitac.org/wiki/Tools_concall

Feel free to add your own. I am running out for a sand width!

Jared, why is the message not attached to this message:
http://teitac.org/mailarchives/mail_message.php?id=160&listid=10

Are you aggressively dealing with top posting?

From: Andi Snow-Weaver
Date: Thu, Oct 12 2006 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: Recommendation:Communications TaskForceConference Call

For your call today, here are my thoughts about some of the issues:

On subcommittee "membership" vs. mailing list subscribers...

I really wasn't planning on trying to maintain a list of "members" for the
SW and Web subcommittee. I had just assumed that anyone who signs up for
the mailing list is a subcommittee member because these are open to
everyone and there were no instructions for the public other than signing
up for the mailing list. And since the only requirement being discussed for
becoming a member is sending an e-mail to the convenor or co-chairs, it
doesn't seem like it is worth the trouble it will take to administer a
distinction. Anyone who gets denied privileges for not having declared
themselves a member will just declare themselves a member so what have we
really accomplished?

Standards groups have membership requirements - some you have to pay to
join, some you can be invited to join as an expert, some you have to attend
a certain number of meetings to be a member in good standing, etc. But
since we don't have that here, it's basically a free for all so why bother
with the extra work?

As to the wiki editing....

My wiki experience is limited to smaller groups than what we are dealing
with here. It would be nice if we could restrict the editing somehow -
subcommittees should decide that for themselves though, not this group.
Co-chairs may not have the technical skills or time to do it but others on
the subcommittee may. But it sounds like it is either not possible to
restrict the editing capabilities or it would be a huge amount of work. So
my suggestion would be that we should just see how it goes. If there are no
problems, then we won't have done unnecessary work. If there are problems,
then we will have to decide how to address them.

On a speaker queue management tool that is integrated with the conference
call bridge ....

This is a luxury that I have grown used to with WCAG. Our meetings contain
much fewer people than have signed up for the SW and Web subcommittee and
until we got Zakim, RRSAgent, and the survey tool, our meetings were not
productive at all. (No reflection on the chairs Gregg :-) )

But if we can't do it, then we can't do it. Can we make it a rule that if
you want to speak, you have to access the Internet to get on the queue? I
think we will take a lot of heat for that. One alternative I guess is for
meeting chairs to pause periodically and ask if anyone without Internet
access wants to get on the queue. The other alternative is that we could
conduct all discussions via e-mail and hold only face to face "meetings" of
the subcommittee either just before or just after the TEITAC meetings.

On co-chairs...

There seems to be some criticism of the way we have been doing this. We
were all told to "go for it" so we did. I proposed to the SW and Web
subcommittee that we try to close on that topic via e-mail and noone
objected. My interpretation of the protocols was that the subcommittee
could decide to operate that way. I will reiterate Jim Tobias' point here
about working asynchronously. Where we can, we should be encouraged to make
decisions via mailing list discussions. The telephone meetings are just not
going to be that productive with so many people. The co-chair thing seemed
like such an easy one to close on since there weren't a lot of volunteers -
actually there weren't any other than the proposed ones that I know of.

Andi

From: Bailey Bruce
Date: Thu, Oct 12 2006 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: Recommendation:CommunicationsTaskForceConferenceCall

> Can we have someone put together a brief outline of the
> outstanding issues that need decisions?

http://teitac.org/wiki/Tools_concall

Feel free to add your own. I am running out for a sand width!

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Thu, Oct 12 2006 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: Recommendation: CommunicationsTask ForceConference Call

I can make it for 30 min then I run into another con call.


Gregg

-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
The Player for my DSS sound file is at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b


> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> mike paciello
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 10:19 AM
> To: 'TEITAC Communications Task Force'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-tools] Recommendation: Communications
> Task ForceConference Call
>
> Jared, Jim, Bruce, and Mike are confirmed for this call. We
> still need input from Gregg, Tim, Jessica and Debbie (I think
> that captured everyone.) And if you can't make the meeting, I
> don't see any reason why the rest of us couldn't move forward.
>
> Assuming we get enough folks to meet, can we start at 1:00 pm
> EST? I'll set up the conference bridge for us.
>
> - Mike
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jared Smith
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 10:29 AM
> To: TEITAC Communications Task Force
> Subject: Re: [teitac-tools] Recommendation: Communications
> Task ForceConference Call
>
> On 10/12/06, mike paciello wrote:
> >
> > Can we organize ourselves to conduct this call this afternoon? I'd
> > hate to go into the weekend with all this clutter....
>
> I agree that a conference would be quite valuable. I'm
> available any time today before 4PM Mountain Time.
>
> Jared
>

From: Jared Smith
Date: Thu, Oct 12 2006 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: FW:Recommendation:CommunicationsTaskForceConferenceCall

On 10/12/06, Bailey Bruce < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Jared, why is the message not attached to this message:
> http://teitac.org/mailarchives/mail_message.php?id=160&listid=10
>
> Are you aggressively dealing with top posting?

There is code in there that strips out the e-mail footer from the
archives. It looks to be a bit aggressive and stripped out more than
it is supposed to. I will fix.

Jared

From: Debbie Cook
Date: Thu, Oct 12 2006 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: Recommendation: Communications Task ForceConferenceCall

Unfortunately I was away this morning--by the time I got through the tons of
mail all these lists are generating I missed the call. One of the few
disadvantages of being out west. Are there notes?
----- Original Message -----
From: "mike paciello" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "'TEITAC Communications Task Force'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 5:27 AM
Subject: [teitac-tools] Recommendation: Communications Task Force
ConferenceCall


There appears to be sufficient reason to recommend that we do a conference
call. It appears that there are several issues, some which may not be able
to be made without formal approval of the Committee. But we should identify
all the issues and make decisions on those that we are empowered to do
within the context of this task force. Anything left over we can sort out
and distribute to the appropriate folks.

Can we organize ourselves to conduct this call this afternoon? I'd hate to
go into the weekend with all this clutter....

- Mike

_____

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Bailey Bruce
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 7:34 AM
To: TEITAC Communications Task Force
Subject: Re: [teitac-tools] TEITAC committee participants - Editing Wiki


I concur with all Gregg's point but disagree with his conclusion that having
the wiki relatively open is a bad idea, at least at this juncture. Since
there is only one wiki, what if one subcommittee welcomes all to do the
work, but another asserts that only formal subcommittee members should be
editing? I also think the manpower required to exert this level of control
could be put to better effect. Close administration of privileges and
subcommittee membership will be time consuming, all the more so because the
process is suppose to be open. Who will be doing this work? Jared? Me?
Tim? Jim and Mike? The subcommittee chairs? Is this task even something
Jared could delegate if he wanted to?

I am disinclined to make it a point to save the subcommittee transcripts. I
am actually strongly of the opinion that such a practice should be actively
discouraged. RCC is an accommodation, not a stenography service. If the
chair keeps it long enough to facilitate the posting of minutes or a
summary, that is fine. FACA obligations for the committee meetings is
something else entirely.




_____

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of mike paciello
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 1:28 AM
To: 'TEITAC Communications Task Force'
Subject: Re: [teitac-tools] TEITAC committee participants - Editing Wiki


I just verified my personal notes against Gregg's points below and I he's
captured everything stated/decided during the committee meetings. This
includes the last bullett involving READ privileges to all on the WIKI.

We did, in fact say that all meetings had to be accessible. We didn't say
recorded in audio or text.

- Mike

_____

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:45 AM
To: 'TEITAC Communications Task Force'
Subject: Re: [teitac-tools] TEITAC committee participants - Editing Wiki



I'm not sure what is being referred to where but.



My memory is that



- We decided that the subcommittees were open to all.

- We also decided that subcommittees would determine their own
operating principles

- If a subcommittee decided that only the chairs or only an editor
would enter data in the WIKI that would be within what we said.

- If a subcommittee including ALL members (whether on TEITAC or
not) decided to limit access to wiki in some other way that also would seem
to be within jurisdiction.

- I believe that we did conclude that the WIKIs had to be open for
all to READ. Even those not on the committees. Part of open process.
Tim or Dave Capozzi could confirm.



I think that having anyone in the world editing on the wiki is a bad idea.
But that is up to each subcommittee I believe, unless it would violate some
rule that the Access board needs to follow or impose.



With regard to CART. My memory is that we said all meetings had to be
accessible. We didn't say they all had to be recorded - in audio or in
text. So I don't know where we are on that. Maybe back to 'the committees
decide'.





Does this help?


Gregg




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Andi Snow-Weaver
Date: Thu, Oct 12 2006 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: Recommendation: Communications TaskForce ConferenceCall

>Unfortunately I was away this morning--by the time I got through the tons
of
mail all these lists are generating I missed the call. One of the few
disadvantages of being out west. Are there notes?

Debbie, here are the notes http://teitac.org/wiki/Tools_concall

Andi