Jabber Logs are part of NOTEWELL and if they are not maintaned then NOTEWELL is
a bigger problem than it already is. Sorry... if NOTEWELL is put in place to
capture participation - then ***all*** participation must be captured and
available to anyone reviewing any initiative...
Todd Glassey, CISM CIFI
as an IT Auditor
-----Original Message-----
From: Spencer Dawkins <spencer(_at_)mcsr-labs(_dot_)org>
Sent: Jul 18, 2006 8:02 AM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Minutes and jabber logs
Sorry, I should have responded to the first notes on-list...
Just a reminder of what our process rules (RFC 2418) say:
All working group sessions (including those held outside of the IETF
meetings) shall be reported by making minutes available. These
minutes should include the agenda for the session, an account of the
discussion including any decisions made, and a list of attendees. The
Working Group Chair is responsible for insuring that session minutes
are written and distributed, though the actual task may be performed
by someone designated by the Working Group Chair. The minutes shall
be submitted in printable ASCII text ...
We don't insist on the list of attendees when that is in the blue sheets,
but it's clear that the minutes have to be readable ("an account of the
discussion including any decisions made") and that is not usually
the state of a raw jabber log. It's important, since the decisions taken
in a meeting have to be confirmed on the list - if the minutes are
properly written, it's enough to ask for agreement on the minutes.
A carefully edited jabber log can of course be just fine.
You know, there was a day when "he said/she said" minutes were actually
discouraged at the IETF... not that I've found a pointer to that written
down anywhere, but people often pointed this out when I started volunteering
to take notes (somewhere around the Yokohama timeframe).
Since this was my suggestion, I should point out that my "carefully edited"
NON-jabber minutes look a heckuva lot like what working group chairs often
post as their minutes, without summary, in the proceedings.
My opinion, which is not the only one available on earth, is that
if one working group chair (and preferably all of the working group's
chairs) reviews careful jabber logs, which I was suggesting could be checked
for accuracy by anyone else participating in the meeting, either onsite or
remotely, while the jabbering scribe was still typing, and
reviews the audio for anything that is still unclear and violates either
memory or sanity, and
then summarizes the accummulated notes in a clear fashion saying
- these were the topics,
- these were the issues that were discussed,
- these were the major points that were raised,
- these were the sense-of-the-room calls that will be verified on the
mailing list,
and then sends the summary, pointers to the presentations, pointers to the
jabber log, and pointers to the audio to the working group mailing list for
review, which is a lot more likely to happen with a summary,
and then posts all of this to the proceedings,
that would be a great leap forward from what is produced today.
For reference, my (non-jabber) notes from Montreal were
BEHAVE - 19KB
SIP - 31 KB
SIPPING -52 KB
SIPSEC - 14 KB
and, since I'm rereading them today for my own trip report, it's not that
easy to go through the non-jabber notes, either.
*I* wish that I'd had help from other people in producing them, and the only
way I know how to collaboratively produce this kind of semi-transcript is
using jabber. Other opinions may be present on this mailing list...
Thanks,
Spencer
_______________________________________________
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