Re: [irsg] Chat comments for the record...

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

Agreed for not automating or blind merge.

If we don't manually merge or (as i am suggesting) ask for contributors
to add notes-worthy contributions directly to the log, then maybe at miniminum
one may want to include the URL to the jabber log of the meeting day into
the notes with just the comment that the jabber log _may_ contain additional
relevant contributions. And thats just because it seems that even the existance
of chat/jabber logs seem to be a surprise to quite a few IETF participants.

Cheers
   Toerless

On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 08:34:43AM -0700, Bob Hinden wrote:
> I don’t support some kind of automatic merging of the jabber/chat log into the minutes.   There can be a lot of noise and off topic discussion there.   For example, here is the one for the 6MAN session:
> 
>    https://jabber.ietf.org/jabber/logs/6man/2022-03-22.html
> 
> A very low signal to noise ratio.
> 
> For 6MAN, our minute takers, Peng Shuping and Pascal Thubert (many thanks to them), include on topic excerpts from the jabber log.  For example from the published minutes:
> 
>     From jabber:
> 
> 	• Loba Olopade: I prefer the normal/exception terminology to fast/slow path
> 
> The session video recording and jabber log are retained and are available to anyone who wanted to look at them. I don’t think they should be automatically added to the minutes.
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
> > On Apr 1, 2022, at 8:04 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > Top-posting to say that I agree a lot with Carsten here.
> > 
> > I try not to be a note-taker these days (because I'm just not as good at it as I used to be), but I remember taking notes on "what was going on in the meeting" while watching the discussion in chat/jabber and thinking "that's where the real discussion is happening".
> > 
> > It's likely that different people will have different experiences with this, based on participation in different working groups, but I've been in meetings where someone was presenting in the meeting, and discussion on aspects of that presentation was still taking place 15 minutes later in chat/jabber. So, in the meetings where I hang out, merging based on timestamps doesn't work, because we're two presentations out of sync between the meeting and the chat/jabber.
> > 
> > I think that's especially likely for BOFs and side meetings (and, yes, I've offered my own working group's jabber logs as a place to exchange thoughts for an unrelated side meeting - my working group wasn't using it at the time, and rarely if ever does).
> > 
> > I applaud the dedication of chairs and secretaries who go to the effort of cleaning up the chat/jabber conversations for inclusion in the minutes, but at their best, some chat/jabber conversations are WELL worth including, even in raw form.
> > 
> > IMO, of course. Do The Right Thing.
> > 
> > Best,
> > 
> > Spencer
> > 
> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 4:34 PM Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > On 2022-03-31, at 20:14, Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > > suggest to the WG participants to directly write suggestions that they
> > > would like to be on the record (when they cannot/wantnot make them
> > > on the microphone), not (only) into the chat, but directly
> > > into the notes.ietf.org notes as they are being taken.
> > 
> > That is such a great idea that we have been doing this in interims, design team meetings etc. for quite a while now.
> > 
> > I sometimes do that when touristing in WGs where I’m not as familiar with the current customs; this may seem a bit jarring to people who think that a minutes document cannot contain things that haven’t been said.
> > 
> > So it would be good to make this part of the etiquette, and maybe develop a notation convention for things that have not (yet) been said.  In particular, people who are going to make a comment at the microphone might want to write up their comment in the notes before that so the note-takers don’t have to do this in real-time.
> > 
> > Grüße, Carsten
> > 
> 



-- 
---
[e-mail]