On 2/3/13 7:38 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 2/3/2013 10:28 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
I'm not sure I've ever been involved with a WG where you could have
gotten consensus on any of the above enough to publish it. Nor can I
think of many WGs that have the excess energy to do this work. Even
getting consensus on a summary of where you ended up is quite
tricky.
Getting consensus on the details of a history is much more difficult
than on a technical spec...
So don't try.
+1. In fact in the ITU context they will sometimes spend half a day on
a meeting report. I really don't think we want to go there.
What I would like not to have happen is that we spend any time bickering
over who said what, especially if it detracts from the business of
developing excellent standards. I think your point, Dave, about
synthesis being left to historians is a good one, and I might go
farther, and say that the whole endeavor should be. But having at least
a record from individauls about what *they* said or meant is, I suppose,
not unreasonable.
Eliot