Elliot -
-----Original Message-----
From: Eliot Lear <lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
Sent: Jul 18, 2006 5:59 AM
To: David Harrington <ietfdbh(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net>
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Minutes and jabber logs
As someone who has both done a lot of jabber scribing and is also a WG
chair and has also remotely participated, I agree with Dave Harrington
on each of his points. Putting these two threads back together,
however, let me suggest the following:
* No minute taker is perfect. This includes the jabber scribe
(especially this one).
Thats unacceptable
* It is useful for the chairs to be able to "grep" the official
jabber takers' capture of what went on in the room, both when
developing minutes, and when controversies arise as they sometimes
do. They tend to be far more succinct than a full audio replay.
Jabber represents a part of NOTEWELL and MUST be captured in iesentirety or
eliminated from the process totally.
* Properly jabbered minutes can suffice as the basis from which a
summary can be made.
No they cannot - and this is a grossly incompetent statement - it is unfounded
and ANY auditor or reviewer of the processes of the IETF's would tell you this
is not true from a forensics standpoint. Sorry... but each stream from any
meeting needs its own Table of Contents and if the streams are not equal to
each other then there is an issue.
However,
* All of this depends on a fully functional network, something that
we cannot yet take for granted. Although it generally performed
well, there were a few hiccups.
The IETF is then 'getting' that there is a mechanical cost to the processes yit
wants to use eh? cool... a little reality is good now and then.
While we can aspire for more
reliability, I don't think we should predicate our minutes on it.
So then what you are saying is that truth in the meeting process is not
important and that the IETF is above reporach... You realize that putting such
a plan as this in place may open the participant's in a meeting to litigation
against the IETF and that group as a whole, which would permanently end all the
efforts for participating in the IETF that anyone with SOX or other regulatory
requirements would be stuck under...
* While the audio was generally VERY good this last conference (I
relied on it for the few meetings I took part in), there were a
few bad patches. I view jabbering and audio as quite complimentary.
* The side conversations in the jabber log to me are often as
relevant as what's being said by individuals. In the case of WAE,
there were several very lively discussions, including one that
contained facts that caught an AD by surprise.
* Regarding input to the microphone, a better solution than having
the jabber scribe voice a remote participant's comment would be to
find a way for the remote participant to actually voice it. I
wonder if this isn't an area we could ask the IAD and interested
volunteers to explore, and perhaps experiment with.
VoIP solution from Cisco for the Meetings?
Eliot
_______________________________________________
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