-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Barry Leiba
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 10:12 AM
To: IETF discussion list
Subject: Re: Barely literate minutes
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Pete Resnick
<presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>
wrote:
...
chair needs to (with the help of minutes takers and other
participants) post detailed notes of the discussion to the list and
ask for objections. That serves two functions: (a) It makes a record
of work that was done; and (b) it gives people who don't attend
meetings (including new folks who come
along) a chance to participate and voice their concerns. *Achievement*
of consensus might have to occur f2f for some issues in some WGs, but
it seems to me that *assessment* of consensus must be completely
possible on the list, even if the only poster to the list is the chair
with all of the f2f notes.
What I would prefer to see is that in addition to minutes there be
separate messages posted to
the list for each document, detailing the discussion of that document in
the meeting and the
changes that will result from the discussion. That can be posted by the
chair, but I'd really
expect it to come from a document editor. That makes sure that everyone
can see what the
document editor heard and intends to do with the document, and allows the
working group to
continue the discussion or say, "Yes, that's what we heard as well, and
it's fine."
As a document author, I've learned that I need to have a friend take good
notes for me, because
all of the great comments I get at the mike are lost otherwise. I can't
take notes while I'm
standing up, facilitating discussion.
As a working group chair I take my own notes, as backup to the note-taker,
then merge the
notes.
Lee