Re: Barely literate minutes

[Scott Brim <[e-mail]>]

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 determine what went on and why
> and hence whether the proposed solution or agreement is
> acceptable.   If  the WG cannot produce such minutes, then I
> think it is obligated to be able to demonstrate consensus from
> the mailing list discussions alone.
> 
> Rather clear tradeoff, IMO.

... 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.

On the larger topic, and the relationship of the mailing list to the f2f
meetings, here is a policy we tried in IntArea:
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/intarea/trac/wiki/MeetingTimePrioritization

Scott