Re: Barely literate minutes

Peter Saint-Andre <> Wed, 28 November 2012 22:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B90F321F8938 for <>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:45:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.49
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.109, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HerJAU8L0LQB for <>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:45:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD67821F8933 for <>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:45:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C2ECC40062; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 15:49:57 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 15:45:01 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Barely literate minutes
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 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 22:45:02 -0000

Hash: SHA1

On 11/28/12 2:45 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 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.

In my experience, if a lot is happening in the WG session at an IETF
meeting then it is extremely difficult for any one participant (or
even a team of two working on etherpad) to take accurate notes. One
example that I chaired was the second codec BoF in Hiroshima (and
forget about the first one in Stockholm!). However, I think Ted Hardie
and I did a pretty good job with the second httpbis session in Paris.
YMMV. But I do think the chairs are ultimately responsible for the

> 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.

That's a separate topic, but I tend to disagree. Why the heck even
have meetings? And I concur with Marc Blanchet that some WGs really
gel and make good progress in person but don't have great threads on
the mailing list.


- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre

Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined -