Re: Barely literate minutes

Scott Brim <> Wed, 28 November 2012 21:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1189C21F89DD for <>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 13:11:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uc-aWGR4YhSn for <>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 13:11:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D77C21F895A for <>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 13:11:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB02026804C; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 16:11:24 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0W2pgn0GPHHp; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 16:11:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from swbi2mbp.local ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 15F7F26804B; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 16:11:14 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 16:11:13 -0500
From: Scott Brim <>
Organization: Internet2
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John C Klensin <>
Subject: Re: Barely literate minutes
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: SM <>, IETF discussion list <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:11:26 -0000

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: