[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Michael Kay wrote:
> > Look, the whole issue of openness is really a red
> > herring. I can say that my process is completely open
> > and anyone in the world can participate. But let's
> > schedule my meetings every quarter and once in Tokyo
> > and once in Berlin and once in Vienna and once in
> > Vancouver and once in Washington. Effectively only
> > the biggest players in the world can play. So, making
> > it open, but making it infeasible to participate means
> > it is, in effect, not open.
>
> But it's more open than the only alternative which is to hold 90% of your
> meetings in the same continent.
>
> Michael Kay
Yes, of course, from one perspective; but requiring a lot of
F2F meetings on various continents effectively discriminates
against participants in *all* regions if they cannot afford
international travel.
Use of the Internet (less so, telephone) is of great assist,
for the S/standards orgs that are willing to allow the
bulk of the real work, and voting, to be done electronically.
It's no help at all if the companies who control the
meeting agenda deliberately set up essential F2F meetings
on various continents with the deliberate goal of excluding
participation by small(er) companies and individuals.
If someone said "a lot of international-scale standards work
still tends to be US-centric," I would probably agree.
-r
|
