Re: Barely literate minutes

Dave Crocker <> Wed, 28 November 2012 23:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0B1321F8590 for <>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 15:16:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hfuGvuJlS1Eq for <>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 15:16:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEEFB21F8482 for <>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 15:16:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qASNFuvP008518 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 28 Nov 2012 15:15:57 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 15:15:54 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Saint-Andre <>
Subject: Re: Barely literate minutes
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 ( []); Wed, 28 Nov 2012 15:15:58 -0800 (PST)
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 23:16:04 -0000

On 11/28/2012 2:45 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 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.
> But I do think the chairs are ultimately responsible for the
> minutes.

The chairs are responsible for running things and ensuring fair and 
thorough process.  Part of running things is delegating tasks.

If someone signs up to take notes, then they ought to have 
responsibility to produce them, including reviewing the audio, if that's 
needed.  The wg approves minutes, not the chairs.  The chairs should 
manage the overall process, but I'll repeat:  A wg needs to distribute 
its workload and if it can't do that, it has basic problems.

>> 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?

Meetings are for more efficient discussion of particular topics, as well 
as the development of support for choices.  But support is different 
than saying "wg decision".

To the extent that a f2f is making definitive decisions, then the IETF 
has become exclusionary against those unable to attend the f2f meeting.

And no, remote participation is never going to be equivalent.  Having to 
'attend' at 2am remotely is not the same as attending at 10am locally.

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking