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

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

I have no objection to having AI transcripts (although experience in 
other fora indicates they have a ways to go.)  I simply object to 
treating those as a replacement for the minutes that highlight the key 
discussion items, action points, and decisions to be verified on the 
list.  (I can imagine that in a few years tools will be good enough to 
generate those with sufficient accuracy to actually save work, but we 
are not there yet.)

Yours,

Joel

On 10/7/2025 9:30 AM, Kyle Rose wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 9:07 AM Joel Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     As was discussed in the past, I believe this misses the point of the
>     minutes.  I do not object to having the recordings and
>     transcripts.  But
>     those do not highlight the decisions and action points, which is the
>     primary purpose of the minutes.
>
>
> While I and many others agree with you on this point, the last 
> discussion on the topic of how best to take minutes demonstrated 
> clearly that there is not consensus on this point.
>
> So given that some people really want a discussion transcript, an AI 
> transcript is *at least* a useful tool to those so interested. A 
> corrected transcript can then be fed back into the LLM to produce its 
> summary of any decisions reached, another thing that is *at least* a 
> useful tool to someone trying to compile such a list. These are tasks 
> that LLMs are actually pretty good at, and we should take advantage of 
> them, both to improve the output and to avoid the "Bueller?" problem 
> of begging for minute takers at the start of each session.
>
> Anything that reduces toil is a good thing, IMO. Let's not let the 
> perfect be the enemy of the good here.
>
> Kyle
>