Re: Barely literate minutes

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Wed, 28 November 2012 21:46 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 064E921F847B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 13:46:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ws4loINlEYix for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 13:46:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BE5D21F8587 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 13:46:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.9] (adsl-67-127-190-125.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.190.125]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qASLjx8n003899 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 28 Nov 2012 13:45:59 -0800
Message-ID: <50B68612.7080107@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 13:45:54 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Subject: Re: Barely literate minutes
References: <CAC4RtVCogYS4tmY1LLi0C-E+B+di2_wTD0N-=AZrVR7-A8Mz+A@mail.gmail.com> <50B5C839.4060909@gmail.com> <59924CD37D50616BA8EB8EF7@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20121128023905.0afdcde0@resistor.net> <50B683C4.2030503@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <50B683C4.2030503@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Wed, 28 Nov 2012 13:45:59 -0800 (PST)
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:46:02 -0000

On 11/28/2012 1:36 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> IMHO it is the chairs' responsibility to listen to the audio recording
> and produce minutes from that (or at least check the scribe's minutes
> against the audio recording). I've done this in the past (full
> disclosure: not always) and it is a lot of work.


I strongly disagree.

Chairs have a high workload already.  A strength of a working group 
needs to be its ability to distribute work amongst participants.

If a working group cannot obtain the services of a participant willing 
to take notes and be responsible for getting wg review of them, then the 
wg has bigger problems.

d/

ps. I'll repeat that I think f2f needs to be essentially irrelevant to 
the assessment of wg consensus, except perhaps as an efficiency hack 
that permits more terse exchanges on the mailing list.
-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net