Brian E Carpenter <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> writes:
The two points are linked. The IESG gets to make some decisions about
people. "X is a lousy WG chair, but Y is the only plausible replacement,
and she works for Z so would have a commercial interest in the
outcome. So we have to put up with X." I think people wouldn't say that
on a call that was being recorded for posterity, precisely because it might
be sub poenaed.
Whereas the narrative minutes would say
"The IESG discussed the Foobar WG and agreed with the AD's proposal to
continue with the current WG chair."
The logical conclusion to that problem is to edit out those parts of
the recording before making it public. Editing audio is roughly as
difficult as writing down narrative minutes these days. That
filtering and editing process is required when writing minutes too, so
it is not like an entirely new process is required. Listeners would
have to listen to the recording and read the minutes to get the
complete publicly available information.
I'm sorry, I *really* don't think this would be practical. Editing written
notes is much easier and quicker then editing audio, and can be done
anywhere the scribe's laptop can be opened.
It depends on the scribe I guess. I would expect anyone who wanted to
do a decent job as a scribe would record the discussion and go over it
once or twice anyway.
But having one recording a year, like Sam suggested, would indeed be
useful too. As noted, however, it would not have any significant
technical use, except as an introduction to the culture in IESG.
Thanks,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf