Would it be worth having three meetings?
There is always the risk that in any given meeting, we mix information
sharing with questions and criticism and debate in an unbalanced way. I
know that this is difficult enough to moderate in a face-to-face meeting,
but near impossible to do so over the phone.
However, we could structure the meeting time in such a way to give
everyone the opportunity to make their case.
For example:
1) At first meeting, have one proponent present their proposal. They walk
us through their entire proposal, targeting 30-45 minutes. Questions may
be asked for clarification, but this is not the opportunity for criticism.
Give the presenter the space to lay out their proposal.
2) At second meeting, have the proponent of the other proposal do the
same, again targeting 30-45 minutes, with questions for clarification.
3) At the third meeting, then (hopefully) we're all well-informed and we
can debate the proposals. The Chair would keep the debate balanced,
ensuring that each SC member has a fair opportunity to offer their
comments. Ideally, the Chair himself would not be an active proponent in
the debate. If this is not possible then we could appoint an alternative
chair, pro tempore, for this particular meeting, to allow all proponents
the full ability to participate in the debate.
-Rob
