RE: Barely literate minutes

["Lee Howard" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
Barry Leiba
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 10:12 AM
> To: IETF discussion list
> Subject: Re: Barely literate minutes
> 
> 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."

As a document author, I've learned that I need to have a friend take good
notes for me, because
all of the great comments I get at the mike are lost otherwise.  I can't
take notes while I'm
standing up, facilitating discussion.

As a working group chair I take my own notes, as backup to the note-taker,
then merge the
notes.

Lee