Hi John,
Thanks for your advise and comments. I prefered that consensus is
documented to know its value/level as was it 60% or 70% or 80%...etc.
How do Chairs in IETF decide on the agree/disagree/no-reply from WGs
" Note that 51% of the working group does not qualify as "rough consensus" and
99% is better than rough. It is up to the Chair to determine if rough
consensus has been reached."
I see that minutes just mention WG agreed to ..., but would suggest
the value, so it does not become below 51%. Also, most participants
need more time to decide on such request from Chairs because they use
their variable-available-volunteering time to do reading/work within
each 28 days.
Regards
AB
---
On 8/28/12, John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote:
--On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 11:17 +0100 Abdussalam Baryun
<abdussalambaryun(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
Hi
Reading through some IETF WGs minutes of meetings, is it
possible that we follow a procedure in writting minutes.
I think the following items are important that SHOULD be
included:
1) name of the chair, minute taker, and jabber reader.
2) number of participant in the meeting room.
3) number of participants at jabber.
It seems to me that the latter two would fall somewhere between
"useless" and "misleading". I don't have any idea how to count
"participants" in the meeting room. The only numbers that are
reasonably easy to capture are the number of people who signed
the blue sheets, but that doesn't capture either non-signers or
those who sign and then sit in the room and pay more attention
to email or other topics than the meeting. If we used the
number of people signed into Jabber for anything, we'd create a
count that was extremely easy to pack as well as not
distinguishing between people who were on Jabber but in the
room, on Jabber but elsewhere at the IETF meeting (conflicts or
couldn't be bothered to attend), remote and actively following
the meeting, or others (and there are likely to be some others).
I could see somewhat more value if actual names and
organizational affiliations were listed, but the community has
(for plausible reasons, IMO) decided to not do that.
This is just a personal opinion/request, but I would really
appreciate it if you (or others making procedural
suggestions/requests like this) would carefully think through
the implications of what they are asking for and how the
information would be used before making the request. It would
be even better if you then included an explanation of the value
that you think would occur, and maybe the tradeoffs you see,
with the request, not just "is it possible that we follow a
procedure...".
That would have an advantage for you too because such
suggestions are more likely to be taken seriously by more people
in the IETF rather than, in the extreme case, going unread
because you have developed a history of bad and/or unjustified
ideas.
regards,
john