[J3] (SC22WG5.6177) October meeting visa invitation letter

[Nathan Sircombe]

Hi,

>  That was Nathan's term - I took it as meaning getting away from doing the development only at J3 meetings, which is what I have hopes your Github can help with, as I discuss in my latest blog post....

Yes, that is partly what I was getting at, and I see that it's more relevant to J3 work specifically.

But I was also thinking of the simple problem of running a productive meeting were attendees will be spread over a wide range of time zones - I think this is a more acute problem for a joint J3/WG5 meeting than it is for J3 alone. This means that, while we may be able to 'meet' for a small window each day, the natural drum-beat of the meeting simple won't be there. Collaborating will need to be much more fluid, discussion on papers may not be possible in real time.
imagine something much closer to collaborating on an OS project, where comments and reviews I post during my working day, possibly in the middle of the night for some committee members, are there ready and waiting when they start for work.

That is, of course, the approach that Ondrej's GitHub project is taking, and I too think it's very promising - a great place to start.

When it comes to those corridor / water-cooler / pub discussions. There's no perfect substitute for the real thing. But we've been doing our day jobs from home now for weeks. I'm sure we've all found ways to keep some of that incidental, partially social, interaction alive. For me Slack has been indispensable for this (and we already have j3-fortran.slack.com).

Many thanks,
Nathan.





On 28/04/2020, 18:23, "J3 on behalf of Steve Lionel via J3" <j3-bounces at mailman.j3-fortran.org on behalf of j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:

    On 4/28/2020 12:31 PM, Ondřej Čertík via J3 wrote:
    > Thanks for this initiative. Having a projector and a telecon capability would be extremely beneficial.

    I'm not convinced a projector is needed, with presentation sharing.
    Often a projector is available at WG5 venues - as I wrote earlier I'm
    not aware that the Las Vegas Residence Inn (J3 venue) has one we can
    use, but maybe it does (for a fee, I am sure.) What I usually see, when
    local attendees are watching a projection and remote attendees are
    watching what is shared,  is that the presenter talks to the room and
    not to the whole audience, and sometimes points to things on the
    projection screen leaving the remote viewers clueless. I suppose video
    can help with that, but that adds complexity.

    Telecon capability, though, is going to be required. The question is who
    will pay for it, something I am working on. J3 can buy equipment with
    funds from meeting fees, but it would be nice if INCITS or even ISO can
    provide some funding. There's also a logistical issue with the way J3
    operates in subgroups that tend to meet together at odd times and then
    the members go off by themselves to work on papers. That needs a
    rethink, and I'd love to see some concrete suggestions in this area.
    Speaking of which...

    > Thanks also for the willingness to reevaluate how J3 works. I agree that's needed. If you wouldn't mind, can you please elaborate more what you mean by "time-shifted engagement"? Let's discuss the details.
    >
    That was Nathan's term - I took it as meaning getting away from doing
    the development only at J3 meetings, which is what I have hopes your
    Github can help with, as I discuss in my latest blog post. It will
    require a willingness across J3 to change the way we work, and needs to
    be established collectively. Really this is a J3 thing and not WG5,
    unless WG5 wants to "take back" technical development of the standard
    from J3, in which case we have additional issues to deal with, and I
    don't think that would be productive.

    There is a great deal to be said, however, for the personal interactions
    and exchanges of ideas that happen when everyone is together in the same
    room,and chatting 1-1 in corridors, etc. Physical meetings are more
    efficient and encourage attendees to devote most of their attention to
    the standard work at hand. That simply doesn't happen with virtual
    meetings. But members who want to do the work, even though they're
    unable to attend in person, should still be able to participate.

    In my mind, the biggest step we can take is to get work-list papers
    written between meetings, with tuning by small teams of interested
    parties, so that when we do meet in person we can get things done
    faster. We don't need any equipment to do that, just a shift of mindset
    and a willingness to siphon off some time from "the day job" to make it
    happen. (I understand, though, that some members simply may not be in a
    position where they are allowed to devote resources to J3 between
    meetings.) I'll note that often J3 votes to change or choose among
    approaches with straw votes, so we can't simply present papers as a
    "take it or leave it". Again, needs some thought and discussion.

    Steve

    P.S. Note that I am following up to the WG5 list where this discussion
    started. J3 subscribers (the WG5 list forwards to the J3 list) need to
    remember to replace the J3 list address with WG5 when following up.


IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.