-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11/28/12 2:45 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > > On 11/28/2012 1:36 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> IMHO it is the chairs' responsibility to listen to the audio >> recording and produce minutes from that (or at least check the >> scribe's minutes against the audio recording). I've done this in >> the past (full disclosure: not always) and it is a lot of work. > > > I strongly disagree. > > Chairs have a high workload already. A strength of a working > group needs to be its ability to distribute work amongst > participants. > > If a working group cannot obtain the services of a participant > willing to take notes and be responsible for getting wg review of > them, then the wg has bigger problems.
In my experience, if a lot is happening in the WG session at an IETF meeting then it is extremely difficult for any one participant (or even a team of two working on etherpad) to take accurate notes. One example that I chaired was the second codec BoF in Hiroshima (and forget about the first one in Stockholm!). However, I think Ted Hardie and I did a pretty good job with the second httpbis session in Paris. YMMV. But I do think the chairs are ultimately responsible for the minutes. > ps. I'll repeat that I think f2f needs to be essentially irrelevant > to the assessment of wg consensus, except perhaps as an efficiency > hack that permits more terse exchanges on the mailing list. That's a separate topic, but I tend to disagree. Why the heck even have meetings? And I concur with Marc Blanchet that some WGs really gel and make good progress in person but don't have great threads on the mailing list. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlC2k+0ACgkQNL8k5A2w/vxlDgCg7oeaVnKObA7LW8aNyIpu7Lnn DnYAoOQc3TL4TQW+LZD566zseeH7OzKj =IolB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
