[Gendispatch] Re: New draft: draft-rescorla-auto-minutes-00

[David Schinazi <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 1:20 PM John R Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Thu, 9 Oct 2025, Martin Thomson wrote:
> > As a practical matter, chairs often approve transcript-style minutes
> unmodified.  Is this a failing on their part?  What remediation would you
> suggest for such laxity?
>
> I could imagine a variety of reasons that WG chairs do that, e.g.:
>
> - they think that more is better so they want all that detail
> - they're not sure what is supposed to be in the minutes so they keep it
> all just in case
> - they're some combination of swamped or lazy and don't take time to
> extract the important parts, or delegate someone to do it
>

Speaking for myself as a WG chair, I am both swamped and lazy. That
combined with the fact that no one has ever asked me for this summary of
action items means I have never produced one for all the sessions I've
chaired in the past 8 years. I take the time to summarize decision points
in the relevant GitHub issue, because I find that to be useful, but that is
separate from the official session minutes.

David

I suppose if feasible, it might be useful to make a few informal queries,
> these minutes seem awfully long compared to what 2026 asks for, was that
> deliberate or what?
>
> In case it's not clear, I think that ekr's proposal to put the speaker
> names into the transcript makes sense, and that it could be useful to keep
> the transcript in addition to the concise minutes.
>
> Regards,
> John Levine, [e-mail], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
>
> --
> Gendispatch mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>