<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">My concern here is that if meetings are less frequent that every 6-8 weeks (the original MPI schedule), this approach drags the process out long enough to create a new failure mode - too much time elapses between votes. I don't think that you can ignore the amount of time between votes. I don't have a good solution to this, other than to permit an alternate, non-meeting mechanism for one of these events (e.g., perhaps the first vote could be done by email if more than 4 months will elapse between the reading and the second vote).<div><br></div><div>I would argue that if a line-by-line reading is helpful, the process failed in a previous step - the one where some representative and knowledgable group read the full proposal in context. I tend to call this the chapter committee, but it might be something else. In any event, line-by-line readings in plenary session are rarely helpful.<br><div><br></div><div>Bill</div><div><br><div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div><div style="font-size: 12px; ">William Gropp</div><div style="font-size: 12px; ">Director, Parallel Computing Institute</div><div style="font-size: 12px; ">Deputy Director for Research</div><div style="font-size: 12px; ">Institute for Advanced Computing Applications and Technologies</div><div style="font-size: 12px; ">Paul and Cynthia Saylor Professor of Computer Science</div><div style="font-size: 12px; ">University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign</div></div><div><br></div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br><div><div>On Feb 11, 2013, at 11:06 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><blockquote type="cite"><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">2) The requirement for each reading and vote at a distinct physical meeting makes more sense when meetings are frequent. This requirement should be tied to the meeting frequency in some way. <br></blockquote><br>I'm not sure what you mean here.<br><br>Are you saying that if we have distinct Forum meetings in 2 sequential weeks, it's still ok to have a reading the first meeting/week, and a vote at the second meeting/week?<br><br>...or is your concern that we'll drop down to having one meeting a year, and that would be problematic (i.e., no proposal could get done in less than 3 years)?<br></span></blockquote></div><br></div></div></body></html>