Hello all, my comments in-line: On 23/06/2015 15:58, Alan Greenberg wrote:
I would appreciate thoughts on the new format that we tried today for the ALAC-Board meeting.
I'll kick it off with my thoughts:
1. I thought that on the ALAC side, it was too much an "Alan Greenberg show".
Quite possibly. I felt that this was a bad case of ALT with the Chair of the Board - except the Chair of the Board was not speaking and it was other Board members speaking. I thought the number of Board member speaking was pretty good.
2. There was a question/comment by Sebastien that I did not take because the planned intent was to have onlyl the people at the table participate. In light of 1, I am not sure this was appropriate.
See my response above. This is a meeting of the ALAC with the Board. If following the same table format, all 15 ALAC members should have been at the table and it should have been possible to take comments and questions from people not at the table. My head was spinning when I looked down from the ivory tower I was sitting on.
3. At one point we contemplated having a timer. In light of a few of the interventions, I am inclined to do so next time.
Yes. Good idea. In short, that format did not work for me. As for the topics, I am sorry but we spent nearly 45 minutes on Equitable Access for All Stakeholders which turned into a "give us money" thing. My point of view is that Board members are not able to understand the distinction because many of the are NOT from the Civil Society / Association sector. It's not a criticism, it's just a fact, when you come from the Business sector. As a result the discussion turned into a discussion about Visas - and we've heard that one again and again in the past. I am sorry but I was uninspired hence my total silence. 2nd topic was also an organisational issue - and the main message, asking "why did the ALAC have to wait for the Board to delay the review, rather than being able to speak out that it was to busy to start the review?" was somehow lost in the ocean of words. 3rd topic was barely touched on since we were really pushed for time. Indeed, the agenda says: "NOT a discussion of the substance" - frankly that was the only discussion that I was interested in (had it been about the substance) but we ran out of time. On the issue of time management, since I was not next to Alan, I could not nudge him. No criticism of him either, I have been in that chair and time flies so it is helpful to have someone nudge you to move on. That's the job of a Vice Chair. The round table did not allow for that. Meeting Effectiveness: 3/10. Meeting Relevance: 3/10. Kindest regards, Olivier