David Harrington wrote:
Hi,
I would not like to see raw jabber logs included as part of the
minutes. The signal-to-noise ratio is way too low in many meetings.
Jabber logs written by a scribe do not do a good job representing the
body language and the nuances of speech that may be important to
really understand what a person said.
That is certainly true, but I am not sure if jabber logs are any
different in this respect from regular minutes.
I would also be concerned that
there are side-discussions in jabber that are not relayed to the whole
room; including those side conversations as a reflection of what was
said in the meeting is simply misleading.
I've mostly had an opposite experience: several active WG participants
of the WG I was chairing couldn't attend in person and their side
conversations were as valuable as comments made during face-to-face
meetings.
It is the chair's job to provide a summary of the meeting for the
mailing list to see what was discussed and "decided". I do not think
the chair should be allowed to evade this responsibility by simply
posting a quick summary and the raw jabber logs to the mailing list as
the official minutes.
I agree that using raw minutes as the minutes is a bad idea. I've always
edited jabber logs before producing meeting notes.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf