State the purpose of AC meetings

[hober]

§ 3.2.4. Advisory Committee Meetings requires that AC meetings happen, but it doesn't concisely state why AC meetings are even a thing. Why do we require the Team to organize two AC meetings each year? @cwilso's comment on #1094 suggests a rationale:

One of the most important parts of this in-person interaction is the ability to have two-way conversations: having advisory committee meetings that are one way presentation focused is not a great use of time. […] Having the ability to meet and have interactive discussions across membership stakeholders on various topics is very important however.

I'm inclined to agree. I suspect something along these lines is a widely shared belief among the membership: the AC meeting is important because it provides an opportunity for the AC to have frank discussions on matters of import to it and to the consortium.

Perhaps the Process section on AC meetings would benefit from the addition of a one-sentence statement of purpose, along these lines.

[hober]

Another possible rationale for AC meetings that's implied but not stated in the current Process text: the AC meeting serves as a "forcing function" at which the Team is required to update the AC about certain matters.

[michaelchampion]

The very term ADVISORY Committee implies meetings are an "opportunity for the AC to have frank discussions on matters of import to it and to the consortium." For whatever reason, AC meetings have become mostly management and elected leaders speaking to members, with little opportunity for frank two-way discussions.

I support some fairly lightweight Process language setting shared expectations for both management and member participants in AC meetings. It's probably worth some research to understand best practices for meeting organizers and participants and craft language for this in the Process. Or at least the Process could informatively reference a Guide page (maintained by the AB?) or trusted external resource that sets appropriate expectations.

For example, the recent article https://hbr.org/2025/08/our-favorite-management-tips-on-leading-effective-meetings suggests things like:

• Publishing the agenda and background material for each agenda item in advance, and assuming meeting participants have read it
• Use interactive tools like polls, and structure discussions to ensure everyone has a voice.
• Sticking to the agenda and ending on time helps people sustain focus and reduces frustration.
• Assign owners to every action item and clarify next steps before the meeting ends.

Maybe that's too much detail for the Process, I'm not sure ...but I don't think it's working to say that the details of how to run AC meetings are in the Team's remit, not a good-faith mutual understanding between the members and management.