I'm confused on a minor point...
The IESG is working like the Holy See, that's no new invention.
At least it's mostly transparent (thanks to the tracker). The
experiment with public transcriptions was less useful, critical
topics were blanked out, the rest only reflected what's already
visible - thanks to the tracker and the minutes.
If "public transcriptions" means IESG telechat narrative minutes
(http://www.ietf.org/IESG/iesg-narrative.html), I am one of the people who
records them, joining Marshall Eubanks sometime after US Thanksgiving last
year.
I can remember three times when I was asked to stop typing; twice for
discussions about what to do with working groups that are years late on
their milestones with WG chairs who aren't answering e-mail, and once on
discussions about an appeal.
I have gotten corrections from two or three ADs (Bert most often, Ted less
often, maybe a couple of ADs who have sent corrections once), and usually
these have taken the form of providing background so that someone doesn't
have to review previous minutes and mailing list discussions in order to
understand what was said in the meeting.
There are still things I wish IESG was more transparent about, but the
narrative minutes aren't like the US Congress where people insert speeches
they never made, at least in my opinion (and the scribes actually send in
the final version to be posted, so no one is dorking with the text after
we've seen it).
Both IESG and the scribes listen very seriously to feedback about how to
improve them (current discussions have been about how to get them posted as
quickly as possible), so - Frank and others - please continue to tell us
what is, and is not, useful.
Thanks,
Spencer the scribe
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf