Re: Barely literate minutes

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Thu, 29 November 2012 04:31 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
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 24D0D21F8443 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:31:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 sYe1YK-3xOv2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:30:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BF421F0C82 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:30:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1Tdvlg-000A3O-IZ; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 23:30:32 -0500
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 23:30:29 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Scott Brim <swb@internet2.edu>
Subject: Re: Barely literate minutes
Message-ID: <DBB649D8EF09DA0D3F62F846@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <50B67DF1.6020308@internet2.edu>
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> <66705A84964227D7EC38A341@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <50B67DF1.6020308@internet2.edu>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: SM <sm@resistor.net>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 04:31:01 -0000

--On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 16:11 -0500 Scott Brim
<swb@internet2.edu> wrote:

> On 11/28/12 15:53, John C Klensin allegedly wrote:
>> Let me be clear.  For most WGs and purposes, most of the time,
>> the "minutes" are the minutes and I'm certainly not going to
>> be the one who makes a big fuss about clarity or literacy
>> unless they are so incomplete and incompetent that posting
>> them becomes a joke.  _However_ if a WG wants to make/be an
>> exception to the principle that consensus has to be
>> demonstrated on the mailing list and instead wants to rely on
>> face to face discussions, than that WG is, IMO, obligated to
>> have minutes complete and comprehensible enough that someone
>> who did not participate in the meeting, even remotely, can
>...
> ... and in those cases it is very important that the "minutes"
> (although I would avoid that as a pre-loaded term) cover as
> much of the arguments as possible.  A reader on the mailing
> list will be utterly shortchanged if all he/she gets are
> conclusions and action points.  In the past, individual WGs
> have argued about whether to include actual names in the
> meeting notes.  Personally I'm in favor but even without them,
> at least the issues and pros and cons of a significant
> decision must be documented in detail.

Yes, exactly.
    john