Consider dropping the entire section on AC meetings

[hober]

As (perhaps obliquely) suggested by @reidmore-online in a comment on #1084, maybe the Process document doesn't need to define what an AC meeting is, or require that or how they happen.

One argument for this that comes to mind: the Process document does not say anything at all about an annual technical plenary, and yet we can see that the Team has diligently organized one every year for twenty four years and counting. (A different conclusion that you could come to from this same argument is #1095.)

[hober]

A no-change counter-argument: the Process document's existing requirements around AC meetings are minimal and non-onerous. Pretty much every interesting detail of how AC meetings are organized and run are already left to the Team to figure out. (And if there are issues with the existing, minimal requirements, those requirements can be revisited—the Process document is malleable.)

[cwilso]

Speaking as an AC representative and long-term member of the community, I agree that the current Process document's requirements around AC meetings are pretty minimal. I would say that as a community member I would expect the opportunity to meet in person; although I agree with the statement that virtual participation should be enabled, the value of in-person interaction is unlikely to be replicated fully, and I think it bears preserving.

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. In fact, we don't even need a meeting for that: It really can be just sent out as a presentation or an email. Having the ability to meet and have interactive discussions across membership stakeholders on various topics is very important however.