Re: Barely literate minutes

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Pete Resnick <[e-mail]> wrote:
...
> chair needs to (with the help of minutes takers and other participants) post
> detailed notes of the discussion to the list and ask for objections. That
> serves two functions: (a) It makes a record of work that was done; and (b)
> it gives people who don't attend meetings (including new folks who come
> along) a chance to participate and voice their concerns. *Achievement* of
> consensus might have to occur f2f for some issues in some WGs, but it seems
> to me that *assessment* of consensus must be completely possible on the
> list, even if the only poster to the list is the chair with all of the f2f
> notes.

What I would prefer to see is that in addition to minutes there be
separate messages posted to the list for each document, detailing the
discussion of that document in the meeting and the changes that will
result from the discussion.  That can be posted by the chair, but I'd
really expect it to come from a document editor.  That makes sure that
everyone can see what the document editor heard and intends to do with
the document, and allows the working group to continue the discussion
or say, "Yes, that's what we heard as well, and it's fine."

And I think that should be posted as soon after the meeting session as
possible.  It should definitely not wait for the document updates to
be done, perhaps weeks later, after everyone who was there has
forgotten the details.

I think I have a topic to discuss at the App chairs lunch in Orlando.  :-)

Barry