-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 11/28/12 2:45 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 11/28/2012 1:36 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
IMHO it is the chairs' responsibility to listen to the audio
recording and produce minutes from that (or at least check the
scribe's minutes against the audio recording). I've done this in
the past (full disclosure: not always) and it is a lot of work.
I strongly disagree.
Chairs have a high workload already. A strength of a working
group needs to be its ability to distribute work amongst
participants.
If a working group cannot obtain the services of a participant
willing to take notes and be responsible for getting wg review of
them, then the wg has bigger problems.
In my experience, if a lot is happening in the WG session at an IETF
meeting then it is extremely difficult for any one participant (or
even a team of two working on etherpad) to take accurate notes. One
example that I chaired was the second codec BoF in Hiroshima (and
forget about the first one in Stockholm!). However, I think Ted Hardie
and I did a pretty good job with the second httpbis session in Paris.
YMMV. But I do think the chairs are ultimately responsible for the
minutes.
ps. I'll repeat that I think f2f needs to be essentially irrelevant
to the assessment of wg consensus, except perhaps as an efficiency
hack that permits more terse exchanges on the mailing list.
That's a separate topic, but I tend to disagree. Why the heck even
have meetings? And I concur with Marc Blanchet that some WGs really
gel and make good progress in person but don't have great threads on
the mailing list.
Peter
- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlC2k+0ACgkQNL8k5A2w/vxlDgCg7oeaVnKObA7LW8aNyIpu7Lnn
DnYAoOQc3TL4TQW+LZD566zseeH7OzKj
=IolB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----