Peter Tribble wrote: > On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Valerie Bubb Fenwick > <Valerie.Fenwick at sun.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009, Jim Walker wrote: >> >> >>> Simon Phipps wrote: >>> >>>> I propose we set the OGB meeting length to 90 minutes. >>>> >>> +1 >>> >> So, that's four of us. does that not work for anyone else? >> > > It works pretty well for me. (That's as a hard limit, and if we could > commit to getting > through the primary business section inside the hour - should be possible > given > that much of that business is rubber-stamping - then we get through > all the formal > business, allow time for extended discussion later, and allow anyone who has > to > dash to do so.) > > I can make this work also (was waiting for Peter because he said Thursdays were tight already).
Will definitely commit to getting through all hard business that requires voting in the first hour. But, these first few meetings might be tough, so please bear with me. If we cannot get a needed vote completed within the hour, we'll use email rather than force folks to stay on the concall line and get into trouble with their families. thanks, Michelle
