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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 10-Oct-25 07:18, John R Levine wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2025, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2025 at 2:58 PM John Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> It appears that Eric Rescorla  <[e-mail]> said:
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-rescorla-auto-minutes-00.html
>>>
>>>>> This draft recognizes the practice of using the automated transcript
>>>>> as a starting point for the minutes (with the chairs having the final
>>>>> approval, of course), and asks the IETF LLC to make a few small
>>>>> changes to the tools to facilitate that practice.
>>>
>>> Based on the discussion so far, I think it would help to make it clearer that
>>> the transcript is not the minutes, and it is still up to the chairs or someone
>>> they delegate to use the transcript and recording to produce the actual minutes.
>>
>> Well, someone else could write that draft, but that's not the intention of
>> this draft.
> 
> I suspect I am not the only person who is confused about what the intent
> is here.
> 
> Is it that the chairs should just wave their hands over the transcript and
> that's good enough?  Or something else?
> 
> Having taken minutes for a lot of meetings, including being the secretary
> of ISOC for five years, I have found that there is considerable value in
> concise minutes that just record the decisions.  

Which is exactly what RFC 2026 and RFC 2418 require; a transcript is not
rqeuired. So I don't think any formal process change is required (assuming
that 2026bis and 2418bis preserve the current requirements).

What ekr proposes seems eminently sensible and should make it much easier
to produce the required minutes.

> Perhaps without making
> any formal process changes we could try to encourage chairs to do that,
> keeping the transcript for anyone who wonders about the details of the
> discussion.

And it meets the more general requirement in RFC 2026:

>>    Each of the organizations involved in the development and approval of
>>    Internet Standards shall publicly announce, and shall maintain a
>>    publicly accessible record of, every activity in which it engages,...

In other words, our process documents are just fine, and IMHO ekr is
proposing a fine new tool.

    Brian


> 
> Regards,
> John Levine, [e-mail], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
>