On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 21:33:05 -0400
Sandy Wills <sandy(_at_)WEIJax(_dot_)com> wrote:
Marshall Eubanks wrote (talking about recording IESG meetings):
My experience is that recordings tend to shut some people up...
Jumping in with both feet here:
I have never been to an IETF or IESG meeting, but I have seen
countless examples of this. Marshall is correct.
On the other hand, I have found it to be a pretty firm rule that the
things that don't get said are things that shouldn't have been said in
the first place.
In other words, the speakers at these meetings are _already_ aware
that they are publicly speaking and making decisions as representatives
of a group. If someone in such a position is only willing to say
something if he (she) knows he'll never get called on his words, then
his words don't have much value anyway.
But my understanding is that IESG meetings are not open, so they are not
speaking publicly now.
This gets back to the ability to subpoena such recordings. If sensitive issues
are going to be discussed, then
in practice they can't be recorded, since you can't really be sure what will
happen to
the recordings. (The person doing the recording could be met by a process
server as he or
she sits down to edit them, for example.)
So,in practice, either the IESG will have to have all meetings be open, or have
some meetings or parts of meetings not recorded. My experience with corporate
boards makes
me suspect that in the latter case a two tier meeting structure might evolve,
with
the real business being conducted in "executive session."
I am neutral about the recording issue; I am just trying to point
out some implications.
Regards
Marshall
(I spent 20 years in the military. The most direct way to find out if a
superior will admit later having given a particular order, is to ask for
it in writing with signature. You are bluntly telling him -in front of
all whithin hearing- that you don't trust him to take responsibility if
there's no evidence. If the superior refuses, then you -and everyone in
hearing- know you were right to challenge him; he'll claim Alzheimer's
later.)
Directed towards the IESG:
Recording meetings, and publishing those recordings, may be a
hassle, but it answers all questions about the integrity of the
decision-making process. There may still be questions about knowledge
and wisdom, but you put to rest all questions about integrity. Refusing
to record (for whatever reason*), after having been asked (for whatever
reason) by the people you represent, says something rather different.
<sarcasm>
* Perhaps the disk space required is too expensive?
</sarcasm>
> ...Plus, if they exist, they are subject to subpoena.
I don't understand this comment. How is this bad? Again, these are our
public representatives, chosen for their knowledge, experience, and
integrity. How can the possibility of being held to their words
possibly be bad?
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf