Re: Interim meetings - changing the way we work

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Thu, 26 February 2015 21:31 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F2121AC423 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 13:31:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jufu52uJeceC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 13:31:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB4911AC443 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 13:31:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9AC224056D; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 13:31:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at maila2.tigertech.net
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (unknown [50.95.128.180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 40AB924019F; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 13:31:01 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54EF9080.9050500@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 16:30:40 -0500
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Interim meetings - changing the way we work
References: <CAL0qLwZk=k-CWLte_ChK9f1kzLwMOTRyi7AwFa8fLjBsextBcA@mail.gmail.com> <54DE3E1C.6060105@gmail.com> <007301d04927$64890d40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <54EDA697.5070107@cisco.com> <01c701d050f6$c80fcd00$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <CAMm+LwgzXg+QM29ygS0Bv+HOo2Gd-hPByXYz2aVu-V4b=Jak+Q@mail.gmail.com> <54EEFCFB.7080107@cisco.com> <047F946E-3041-4510-8F78-D8D743C4FEED@nominum.com> <939B49536ECD5BFA17B5E5C4@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <48DFF1A2-9BD0-4E08-B44A-704D5DCC278E@nominum.com> <54EF3644.7090808@joelhalpern.com> <02ED4331-9441-484C-96A6-70352C42ABBC@nominum.com> <54EF426A.9070706@joelhalpern.com> <31CF2C53-8168-4B2F-9E14-76FB44854813@nominum.com> <54EF7229.1030301@queuefull.net> <CAK3OfOh6BMP40y0H5Yny+n-8B8ayzgq4BeT2MmfF2XuxBBLk5A@mail.gmail.com> <54EF772C.5030309@queuefull.net> <519F10F3-0B24-4085-9294-8FFA10632CB3@lucidvision.com> <54EF8D21.30701@gmai l.com> <6BE1D8A6-C954-49C9-B0B8-D2D52DE212DC@lucidvision.com>
In-Reply-To: <6BE1D8A6-C954-49C9-B0B8-D2D52DE212DC@lucidvision.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/bqORuwuflct55rI41xHsNRcSjGI>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 26 Feb 2015 21:31:09 -0000

Thomas, if participants who can not make the conference calls are 
obliged to listen to the full recordings to get the key points of what 
has happened, why, what are the questions, and similar issues that need 
to be visible to the WG, then we are not running an inclusive process 
that allows for participation by the range of individuals we need.

There is a reason that the IETF distinguishes between design teams 
meetings, where the design team has to explain their work carefully to 
the WG, and working group meetings.  There has always been a problem of 
not getting as much context as we would like from the WG minutes.  But 
since we explicitly take all resolutions to the list, this is 
ameliorated by folks being able to ask for explanations, by those issues 
being taken to the list promptly, and by the fact that we only met 3 
times a year.  If you have bi-weekly calls and the WG can not tell what 
is going on with those calls, then what you have is a design team.  And 
then the folks involved need to own up to it as a design team, 
understand that they need to explain to the list what they have 
analyzed, their reasoning, and their conclusions.

Yours,
Joel

On 2/26/15 4:21 PM, Thomas D. Nadeau wrote:
>
>> On Feb 26, 2015:4:16 PM, at 4:16 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 27/02/2015 09:08, Thomas D. Nadeau wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 26, 2015:2:42 PM, at 2:42 PM, Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Nico Williams wrote:
>>>>> Yes, but a record that a concall or other interim meeting took place,
>>>>> and who attended, even if there are incomplete or missing minutes, is
>>>>> important for IPR reasons.  Ensuring that such meetings are NOTE WELL
>>>>> meetings is (should be) a priority, and that includes ensuring that a
>>>>> record of that much exists.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ideally the concalls and other interims would be recorded.
>>>>
>>>> I agree completely. My point was that meeting records (including minutes) will inevitably be incomplete, or possibly inaccurate, and that relying on the mailing list as an authoritative record is more effective.
>>>>
>>>> Of course it is disappointing that we can't meaningfully translate voice discussions into text, in the minutes or in mailing list threads. If there were some magic tool e.g. that took better minutes then I'd be happy to use it. But otherwise, I think we just have to trust chairs to manage WG collaboration in whatever way is most effective for their WG's collaborators.
>>>
>>> 	The first step is to agree that an A/V recording is record enough.
>>
>> It absolutely is not enough. Please see my previous message,
>> and the relevant rules in RFC 2418.
>>
>>    Brian
>
> 	You are missing my point. RFC or not, the IETF needs to evolve.
>
> 	--Tom
>
>
>
>>
>>> Perhaps having meetbot/txt notes that at a min include actions/decisions like we do in the issue tracker we've used for NETMOD's Yang 1.1's issues.
>>>
>>> 	--Tom
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> This will inevitably be suboptimal for some part of the population. (For instance, I've never been able to find an interim meeting time that fits the schedules of all attendees.) But if they (we) always revert to the mailing list for decision making then I suspect our work can remain open and transparent.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Benson
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>