Re: Barely literate minutes

[t.p. <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Resnick" <[e-mail]>
To: "Peter Saint-Andre" <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>; "IETF discussion list" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:56 PM
> On 11/28/12 4:45 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > On 11/28/12 2:45 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
>
> It is a fact of life that some WGs only make progress face-to-face. I

Pete

I find that strange, not something I have ever seen (at least judging by
the minutes of WG meetings which I have not attended).

I see many WG which only make progress just prior to the closing of I-D
submission up to the point soon after submission reopens, but that is
not the same thing as making progress by meeting.

And I do know of two or so WG which make progress at a meeting; but they
seem to me to be WG that are too small to be a WG in the first place,
where the work is driven by less than half a dozen people who gain much
from meeting but where the breadth of experience and knowledge is
missing and where the output is then, for me, suspect.

WG of a substantial size seem to me to gain little or nothing from
meeting, as the minutes show.

Tom Petch








> think that's often a sign of a problem, but it's a fact. But if that
> happens, the 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.
>
> pr
>
> --
> Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - [phone]
>
>