Subject: RE: draft-meyer-agendas-and-minutes-00.txt

From: "Nelson, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:06:17 -0500

David Meyer writes...

> 	wgchairs:	 This is the document that we discussed
> 			 at the last wgchairs meeting.

I missed that meeting.  Sorry.

>                  Looking forward to your comments.

I'll start with some meta comments.

While resolving ambiguities and conflicting requirements as posted on
various IETF web pages (e.g. Secretariat requirements) is to be desired,
it may be sufficient simply to get those pages synchronized.  Do we need
an Internet Draft to do that?  Is this document intended to become an
RFC and a BCP?

While setting requirements for the minimum content and a minimum level
of quality in agendas, minutes, slides and other proceeding submissions
is to be desired, specifying detailed format templates is probably not a
good tradeoff.  Having a clear record of the proceedings is important.
Requiring stylistic consistency is not, IMHO.  We need to balance the
value in formatting rules with the extra work imposed on the WG Chairs
and Secretaries.  Format rules that apply to slides would need to be
applied by the submission authors, not the WG Chairs and Secretaries.
Format rules for the minutes will make for more work for the WG Chairs
and Secretaries who routinely accept session notes in electronic
format(s) from the volunteer scribes and edit them into a cohesive set
of minutes.

I'd much prefer if this document set some basic requirements for content
and avoided setting any format and style requirements or rules, beyond
what exist already.  Life is already too complex.  :-)

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:13:45 -0800

On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 02:06:17PM -0500, Nelson, David wrote:
> an Internet Draft to do that?  

	Actually, that's a good point, and I wanted to remove
	that because much of it is solved by new tools.

> Is this document intended to become an RFC and a BCP?

	Informational is the current thinking.

> Requiring stylistic consistency is not, IMHO.  

	Understand your point. Others have argued otherwise, for
	a wide variety of reasons.

> We need to balance the value in formatting rules with the extra
> work imposed on the WG Chairs and Secretaries.  Format rules
> that apply to slides would need to be applied by the submission
> authors, not the WG Chairs and Secretaries. 

	Very true. The point, however, was to provide guidelines
	for these materials so that we might get (i). consistent
	quality, and (ii). somewhat consistent content. That is
	the goal in any event.

> what exist already.  Life is already too complex.  :-)

	I'll agree that life is complex, but then, I'm the
	minimum-complexity-you-can-get-away-with poster child
	(robustness and complexity being related, and all of that
	stuff).

	Dave

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:46:44 -0500

I'd like to second the idea that specific templates is going too far.

Providing optional templates is a great idea.  We've seen that with
xml2rfc.  But only require the requirements.

Also templates are far better when accompanied by quality tools.

---

From: "Olaf M. Kolkman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:54:07 +0100

> I'd like to second the idea that specific templates is going too far.

The idea is to provide a template as an example, or something to  
start from. Not as a required format. The intention is really to  
provide an example of how things can be done not to write a process  
dogma.

--Olaf

-----------------------------------------------------------
Olaf M. Kolkman
NLnet Labs
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 15:00:30 -0500

> 	Informational is the current thinking.

I should certainly hope so .. Informational please.

> 	a wide variety of reasons.

We do have to remember here that this is a volunteer organization after 
all. My thinking is very much along Dave Nelson's lines. We're beginning 
to go a bit overboard on these procedural issues. The draft on 
recommendations for site selections for the Secretariat is another one 
ripe enough to go "over the top" and a near candidate for "bad memo of 
the year" award.

Now it fine for some of us who dont have day jobs to attempt to fine 
tune IETF procedures and submissions but this again is one of those 
drafts that are floating around that attempt to "do the right thing" but 
in practice look foolish and remind me of why I despised my 5th grade 
English teacher who began each days lesson with some "YOU shalt not 
(fill in blank)"

>>work imposed on the WG Chairs and Secretaries. 

One thing we should do BTW is encourage WG chairs that do not have 
Secretaries to hire them. I've found a WG Sec it to be invaluable on 
multiple levels.

It is a "good thing to do" tm.

  Format rules
>>format(s) from the volunteer scribes and edit them into a cohesive set

That presumes you have a cohesive WG to begin with that can produce a 
cohesive meeting, from which to formulate cohesive minutes. In my 
experience this is not always possible.

The resemblance of some WG meetings to a primate house in a zoo shortly 
before feeding time is striking.

>>what exist already.  Life is already too complex.  :-)

Amen to that.

> 	(robustness and complexity being related, and all of that

Dave I think our point is , "Less IS more". I know you agree with that.

-- 

Richard Shockey, Director - Member of Technical Staff
NeuStar Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza  -   Sterling, VA  20166
sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org   sip:57141(at)fwd.pulver.com
ENUM +87810-13313-31331
PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile +1 703.593.2683
Fax: +1 815.333.1237
<mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> or
<mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz>
<http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:29:45 -0800

> Dave I think our point is , "Less IS more". I know you agree with that.

	Totally.

	Just to briefly review the history here, I had written
	this originally as an attempt to rationalize (for myself
	if no one else) what, when, where and how all of the post
	meeting stuff had be to assembled. That draft was

	 http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-meyer-wg-post-meeting-03.txt 

	Of course, the meeting materials tool answered many of
	the questions posed in that document.

	In any event, at the last wgchairs meeting we discussed
	disposition of the draft, and Allison and Margaret asked
	if we could revive it, which we did. What might be useful
	at this point is to understand which parts, if any, of
	the document are useful. 

	Thanks,

	Dave