On 11/28/2012 2:45 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
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.
...
But I do think the chairs are ultimately responsible for the
minutes.
The chairs are responsible for running things and ensuring fair and
thorough process. Part of running things is delegating tasks.
If someone signs up to take notes, then they ought to have
responsibility to produce them, including reviewing the audio, if that's
needed. The wg approves minutes, not the chairs. The chairs should
manage the overall process, but I'll repeat: A wg needs to distribute
its workload and if it can't do that, it has basic problems.
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?
Meetings are for more efficient discussion of particular topics, as well
as the development of support for choices. But support is different
than saying "wg decision".
To the extent that a f2f is making definitive decisions, then the IETF
has become exclusionary against those unable to attend the f2f meeting.
And no, remote participation is never going to be equivalent. Having to
'attend' at 2am remotely is not the same as attending at 10am locally.
d/
--
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
