--On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 16:11 -0500 Scott Brim
<swb(_at_)internet2(_dot_)edu> wrote:
On 11/28/12 15:53, John C Klensin allegedly wrote:
Let me be clear. For most WGs and purposes, most of the time,
the "minutes" are the minutes and I'm certainly not going to
be the one who makes a big fuss about clarity or literacy
unless they are so incomplete and incompetent that posting
them becomes a joke. _However_ if a WG wants to make/be an
exception to the principle that consensus has to be
demonstrated on the mailing list and instead wants to rely on
face to face discussions, than that WG is, IMO, obligated to
have minutes complete and comprehensible enough that someone
who did not participate in the meeting, even remotely, can
...
... and in those cases it is very important that the "minutes"
(although I would avoid that as a pre-loaded term) cover as
much of the arguments as possible. A reader on the mailing
list will be utterly shortchanged if all he/she gets are
conclusions and action points. In the past, individual WGs
have argued about whether to include actual names in the
meeting notes. Personally I'm in favor but even without them,
at least the issues and pros and cons of a significant
decision must be documented in detail.
Yes, exactly.
john