Subject: RE: A concept resurrected(?) - WG secretary?

From: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 10:08:10 -0400

There have been lots of good ideas posted about this. But I don't
think one formula works for all WGs/Chairs.

There is a saying that whatever is measured improves. If you want
minutes filed in a timely way, develop a point system with a couple
of steps where a WG gets the most points if they submit minutes within
tne days of a meeting down to zero if they miss the next proceedings
and post a list of WGs sorted by their average minutes score per
meeting. Admitted this does not measure the quality of the minutes
but I bet you would get more timely-filed minutes and, other things
being equal, the fresher and more current the meeting is when minutes
are written/corrected, the better they will be.

Donald

-----Original Message-----
From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, 09 October, 2003 8:06 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: A concept resurrected(?) - WG secretary?

Dear All,

A couple of good ideas in this thread -

- prearranging two note-takers before the meeting,

- developing a minutes-nits list (we don't have any idea what
format to produce notes in; we had some complaints after the
last meeting that we had text minutes that were transformed into
HTML and all formatting lost, so this seems like a mimimum
requirement for IETF 58!)

We've tripped over some voracious scribes, especially on jabber,
at the last couple of meetings (the jabber logs for the IESG
plenary were almost word-for-word). It would be nice to
encourage this style of note-taking, AS WELL AS the "context and
decisions" style of minutes that we really need to publish. Most
WGs have either one or the other, so he-said/she-said minutes
are a forest and decisions minutes don't have enough redundancy
to identify missed sense-of-the-room calls.

I've been involved with WG chairs who were trying after the
meeting to identify what the sense of the room was for moving a
document forward - the note-takers missed the decision, and
nobody had a transcript, so...

And having he-said/she-said minutes on Jabber is really nice -
I'd like to see us commit to having Jabber logs at every IETF,
and start acting like this was normal. 

Spencer

p.s. I am using the word "decision" to describe "sense of the
room", of course.

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 07:50:13 -0700 (PDT)

I want to echo Donald here. Getting more timely minutes out for
review makes it easier for participants to review the minutes
and say "was that really what happened?" - if we want better
minutes, let's make it easier for everyone to help improve
them...

- by the time we closed IETF 57 minute submissions, we'd already
sent out our first call for IETF 58 slot requests! It would be
silly for us to say "you can't request a slot unless you
submitted minutes for your last meeting" ... or would it?

Spencer

--- Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <[email-masked]>

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 08:17:37 -0700

>> are written/corrected, the better they will be.

	I'm really not a fan of punishment, and further, after
	the Vienna IETF I experienced (for the first time)
	difficult getting minutes from my scribes (all three of
	them, actually). So no matter how much time I may have
	set aside to edit/complete minutes, without the raw
	material from the scribes, it really didn't matter. So in
	this case, what are you going to do, punish (subtract
	points) from the scribe, or from the WG chair for
	choosing a "bad" scribe? 

	Just doesn't seem workable to me. 

	Dave