The meeting will be held via GoToMeeting (Note that there is a limit of 150 attendees) and recorded for others to review and comment. Interaction for this one will be limited, but use of the Chat function will enable us to capture questions and answer them later, if we don’t get to them in the meeting.
Hi Jeff! Thank you for organising this! Is it possible to share a calendar entry (.ics, etc.) per meeting which can be easily imported to our calendars?
@berlotti would like to open a call for presentations for this particular topic, enabling concerned developers to express their points of view, one way or another. We hope this also enables a broader chorus of voices to express themselves in the course of this important discussion. Format for submissions is as follows:
2 slides (max)
5 minutes of presentation (max)
Slides must be submitted to technical@buildingsmart.org by 24 hours in advance (20 May 2020, 13.00 UTC) to be considered.
This is quite short notice to announce a discussion in 6 days with 5 days to prepare a presentation on opinions on what is actually quite a complex discussion topic. I do not see advantages in rushing the discussions on issue 12 - which has far reaching consequences and is not to be decided lightly.
Even after reading the discussion thread on Github, I can see quite a few sides to the argument and will need time to digest and form a response, even then of which I am unsure of whether it will be the right response. This needs mulling over, time for many parties to write responses in text which can be objectively evaluated, not a rushed verbal discussion where emotion and hierarchy tends to trump merit.
My $0.02. Let this technical discussion continue on Github - a development monthly call is not the right place for this.
I agree with @Moult that this is a crucial and multifaceted issue which permits quick and forced decisions. I also prefer written communications for complex matters. But I don’t see any reason against accompanying this with verbal exchange as long as the discussion is targeted towards clarification and understanding of the various aspects, options and impact on implementation and not towards arguing for or against particular solutions.
@tauscher I believe we do want to have interested parties make reasoned arguments one way or another. The question of objectified relationships is a big one with lots of possible consequences, but with lots of eyes/brains looking at it from many points of view, one POV may not have all the necessary information to make a decision on their own. Sharing these POVs in a group setting would help everyone understand the issue better and consider the compromises that may be necessary for the decision either way.
I think if you review the GitHub repository’s wiki about the overall scope and intent of these discussions, you will see that we don’t want positions to be argumentative on a personal opinion level as much as an objective exploratory level. In other words, we need thoroughly, well-argued, dispassionate discussion that explores all options leading to a better final decision.
@Moult Some issues are going to take longer than others to make a decision. This is another opportunity to discuss this particular issue, but in an immediately interactive way. We didn’t think it would be trivial, but this is a step in the right direction.
Let me go back to the recording of the April call and make a list of the topics Léon has proposed for all future calls. This will help everyone keep track of these discussions in the future.
So long as a decision is not enforced during the meeting I am fine with it. I merely voice my concerns as during the Vilnius meeting, lots of decisions were enforced and made during a very short time, and similarly during the BCF hackathon, lots of decisions were enforced and made during a very short time.
These meetings are not intended to make decisions. They are intended to gather input to make sure all angles and aspects are covered. The reason this topic is scheduled, is exactly because it is so multi faceted and complex. The more input, the better overview we can create to make a decision (later).
Again, the intent of these webmeetings is to get broad input, to make sure the development of IFC is not limited to a few people that do nót have a full overview. Take the opportunity to share your arguments, thoughts and considerations to help paint the full picture.