Re: Barely literate minutes

Pete Resnick <> Wed, 28 November 2012 22:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AD8921F8890 for <>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:56:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.556
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.556 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FErgTdEOBP75 for <>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:56:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACC2F21F875A for <>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:56:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;;; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1354142466; x=1385678466; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=X9WxOjqqNGQL1r4X4DmEoFZ5kbnK0slBXtG5U3oMTU8=; b=thLBChwvDGI2pql6HzMkJbPgYodYdh1CFyaRdDqeI4+H5SQZ9IEa8WsT vQH8hL+iQHlhrjLT/EZg3ymA5JS0Sq7Z0KfSOV0qs4h9jqaVuXghTWCPe rNzZzSMtLFsV3K6gIBynKVJSumI2x5OdHACVj7NJmAiSFixLM4HOoihiC 8=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6910"; a="9559603"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 28 Nov 2012 14:41:05 -0800
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6910"; a="2629213"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 28 Nov 2012 14:56:57 -0800
Received: from presnick-mac.local ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.318.4; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:56:57 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 16:56:48 -0600
From: Pete Resnick <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Saint-Andre <>
Subject: Re: Barely literate minutes
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: []
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 22:56:59 -0000

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 
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.


Pete Resnick<>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478