Re: Minutes and jabber logs
Gray, Eric wrote: List of attendees? Surely that is actually independent of the minutes... It's actually required (should) as part of the minutes by RFC 2418. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Minutes and jabber logs
List of attendees? Surely that is actually independent of the minutes... -- -Original Message- -- From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 6:14 AM -- To: David Harrington -- Cc: ietf@ietf.org -- Subject: Re: Minutes and jabber logs -- -- Just a reminder of what our process rules (RFC 2418) say: -- -- All working group sessions (including those held -- outside of the IETF -- meetings) shall be reported by making minutes available. These -- minutes should include the agenda for the session, an -- account of the -- discussion including any decisions made, and a list of -- attendees. The -- Working Group Chair is responsible for insuring that -- session minutes -- are written and distributed, though the actual task may -- be performed -- by someone designated by the Working Group Chair. The -- minutes shall -- be submitted in printable ASCII text ... -- -- We don't insist on the list of attendees when that is in -- the blue sheets, -- but it's clear that the minutes have to be readable (an -- account of the -- discussion including any decisions made) and that is not usually -- the state of a raw jabber log. It's important, since the -- decisions taken -- in a meeting have to be confirmed on the list - if the minutes are -- properly written, it's enough to ask for agreement on the minutes. -- -- A carefully edited jabber log can of course be just fine. -- -- (All of this applies equally to meetings at IETF sites, -- interim meetings, -- WG conference calls, and WG jabber conferences - readable -- minutes must be -- agreed on the list.) -- -- Brian -- -- -- David Harrington wrote: -- Hi, -- -- I would not like to see raw jabber logs included as part of the -- minutes. The signal-to-noise ratio is way too low in many -- meetings. -- -- Jabber logs written by a scribe do not do a good job -- representing the -- body language and the nuances of speech that may be important to -- really understand what a person said. I would also be -- concerned that -- there are side-discussions in jabber that are not relayed -- to the whole -- room; including those side conversations as a reflection -- of what was -- said in the meeting is simply misleading. -- -- It is the chair's job to provide a summary of the meeting for the -- mailing list to see what was discussed and decided. I -- do not think -- the chair should be allowed to evade this responsibility by simply -- posting a quick summary and the raw jabber logs to the -- mailing list as -- the official minutes. -- -- David Harrington -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- -- -- -Original Message- -- From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 11:18 AM -- To: ietf@ietf.org -- Subject: Re: Meetings in other regions -- -- -- That said, and given the difficulties of balancing competing -- priorities in site location, it seems reasonable to me to make -- a decent, good-faith effort without getting overly bogged down -- in where should we meet? discussions, and really try to get -- the remote participation thing nailed down a little better. The -- ratio of good to bad remote meeting input has improved a lot -- over the past year or so but there are still too many working -- groups without a Jabber scribe in the room (which prevents remote -- listeners from providing inputs), etc. -- -- OK, this is only a thought, and I'm out of the process -- improvement business -- anyway, but I've been seeing a consistent improvement in the -- quality of -- jabber logs for at least two years, and I'm wondering if -- there are working -- groups who would be willing to try minutes = chair summary -- plus jabber -- logs for a few IETFs (without what we usually think of -- as detailed -- -- -- minutes), and see if this is actually workable. -- -- I'm a many-time repeat offender as WG note-taker, and am -- watching my notes -- look more and more like a jabber log with only one jabberer; -- the advantages -- of jabber (in my experience) are -- -- - it's nice for the note-taker to be able to participate in -- the meeting - as -- an extreme case, in the SIPPING Ad Hoc on Friday, Gonzalo and -- Mary handed me -- the mike about twenty times, but very litte of what I said -- appeared in the -- notes, and it's worse when someone is already talking when I -- stop talking. -- That's typical in my experience. With Jabber, people can type -- until I get -- back to my seat. -- -- - It's really nice when I misquote, or mis-attribute, -- something that was -- said and another jabberer corrects it right away. This is SO -- much better -- than the WG chair having to listen to the audio stream to -- check my notes -- after some number of days has elapsed (and sometimes all the -- chair can tell -- from the audio is that I got it wrong, without knowing
Re: Minutes and jabber logs
Folks interested in the topic of minutes may want to go find a copy of (the expired) draft-meyer-agendas-and-minutes-00.txt And if they think this is a good direction to go, encourage the authors to update the document and push it forward through the system. Thomas ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Minutes and jabber logs
On Tuesday, July 18, 2006 12:14:00 PM +0200 Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: if the minutes are properly written, it's enough to ask for agreement on the minutes. Yes, but you have to be careful. Many organizations follow a practice in which the members approve the minutes of each meeting sometime after the meeting (often, at the next meeting). But this approval is merely agreement that the minutes are an accurate representation of what happened at the meeting. In the IETF, it's not good enough for the mailing list to agree that the minutes are _accurate_. They also need to agree with the decisions recorded therein. Still, your point is well taken. Raw jabber logs certainly do not constitute minutes. -- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sr. Research Systems Programmer School of Computer Science - Research Computing Facility Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Minutes and jabber logs
Sorry, I should have responded to the first notes on-list... Just a reminder of what our process rules (RFC 2418) say: All working group sessions (including those held outside of the IETF meetings) shall be reported by making minutes available. These minutes should include the agenda for the session, an account of the discussion including any decisions made, and a list of attendees. The Working Group Chair is responsible for insuring that session minutes are written and distributed, though the actual task may be performed by someone designated by the Working Group Chair. The minutes shall be submitted in printable ASCII text ... We don't insist on the list of attendees when that is in the blue sheets, but it's clear that the minutes have to be readable (an account of the discussion including any decisions made) and that is not usually the state of a raw jabber log. It's important, since the decisions taken in a meeting have to be confirmed on the list - if the minutes are properly written, it's enough to ask for agreement on the minutes. A carefully edited jabber log can of course be just fine. You know, there was a day when he said/she said minutes were actually discouraged at the IETF... not that I've found a pointer to that written down anywhere, but people often pointed this out when I started volunteering to take notes (somewhere around the Yokohama timeframe). Since this was my suggestion, I should point out that my carefully edited NON-jabber minutes look a heckuva lot like what working group chairs often post as their minutes, without summary, in the proceedings. My opinion, which is not the only one available on earth, is that if one working group chair (and preferably all of the working group's chairs) reviews careful jabber logs, which I was suggesting could be checked for accuracy by anyone else participating in the meeting, either onsite or remotely, while the jabbering scribe was still typing, and reviews the audio for anything that is still unclear and violates either memory or sanity, and then summarizes the accummulated notes in a clear fashion saying - these were the topics, - these were the issues that were discussed, - these were the major points that were raised, - these were the sense-of-the-room calls that will be verified on the mailing list, and then sends the summary, pointers to the presentations, pointers to the jabber log, and pointers to the audio to the working group mailing list for review, which is a lot more likely to happen with a summary, and then posts all of this to the proceedings, that would be a great leap forward from what is produced today. For reference, my (non-jabber) notes from Montreal were BEHAVE - 19KB SIP - 31 KB SIPPING -52 KB SIPSEC - 14 KB and, since I'm rereading them today for my own trip report, it's not that easy to go through the non-jabber notes, either. *I* wish that I'd had help from other people in producing them, and the only way I know how to collaboratively produce this kind of semi-transcript is using jabber. Other opinions may be present on this mailing list... Thanks, Spencer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Minutes and jabber logs
Jabber Logs are part of NOTEWELL and if they are not maintaned then NOTEWELL is a bigger problem than it already is. Sorry... if NOTEWELL is put in place to capture participation - then ***all*** participation must be captured and available to anyone reviewing any initiative... Todd Glassey, CISM CIFI as an IT Auditor -Original Message- From: Spencer Dawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Jul 18, 2006 8:02 AM To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Minutes and jabber logs Sorry, I should have responded to the first notes on-list... Just a reminder of what our process rules (RFC 2418) say: All working group sessions (including those held outside of the IETF meetings) shall be reported by making minutes available. These minutes should include the agenda for the session, an account of the discussion including any decisions made, and a list of attendees. The Working Group Chair is responsible for insuring that session minutes are written and distributed, though the actual task may be performed by someone designated by the Working Group Chair. The minutes shall be submitted in printable ASCII text ... We don't insist on the list of attendees when that is in the blue sheets, but it's clear that the minutes have to be readable (an account of the discussion including any decisions made) and that is not usually the state of a raw jabber log. It's important, since the decisions taken in a meeting have to be confirmed on the list - if the minutes are properly written, it's enough to ask for agreement on the minutes. A carefully edited jabber log can of course be just fine. You know, there was a day when he said/she said minutes were actually discouraged at the IETF... not that I've found a pointer to that written down anywhere, but people often pointed this out when I started volunteering to take notes (somewhere around the Yokohama timeframe). Since this was my suggestion, I should point out that my carefully edited NON-jabber minutes look a heckuva lot like what working group chairs often post as their minutes, without summary, in the proceedings. My opinion, which is not the only one available on earth, is that if one working group chair (and preferably all of the working group's chairs) reviews careful jabber logs, which I was suggesting could be checked for accuracy by anyone else participating in the meeting, either onsite or remotely, while the jabbering scribe was still typing, and reviews the audio for anything that is still unclear and violates either memory or sanity, and then summarizes the accummulated notes in a clear fashion saying - these were the topics, - these were the issues that were discussed, - these were the major points that were raised, - these were the sense-of-the-room calls that will be verified on the mailing list, and then sends the summary, pointers to the presentations, pointers to the jabber log, and pointers to the audio to the working group mailing list for review, which is a lot more likely to happen with a summary, and then posts all of this to the proceedings, that would be a great leap forward from what is produced today. For reference, my (non-jabber) notes from Montreal were BEHAVE - 19KB SIP - 31 KB SIPPING -52 KB SIPSEC - 14 KB and, since I'm rereading them today for my own trip report, it's not that easy to go through the non-jabber notes, either. *I* wish that I'd had help from other people in producing them, and the only way I know how to collaboratively produce this kind of semi-transcript is using jabber. Other opinions may be present on this mailing list... Thanks, Spencer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Minutes and jabber logs
Elliot - -Original Message- From: Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Jul 18, 2006 5:59 AM To: David Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Minutes and jabber logs As someone who has both done a lot of jabber scribing and is also a WG chair and has also remotely participated, I agree with Dave Harrington on each of his points. Putting these two threads back together, however, let me suggest the following: * No minute taker is perfect. This includes the jabber scribe (especially this one). Thats unacceptable * It is useful for the chairs to be able to grep the official jabber takers' capture of what went on in the room, both when developing minutes, and when controversies arise as they sometimes do. They tend to be far more succinct than a full audio replay. Jabber represents a part of NOTEWELL and MUST be captured in iesentirety or eliminated from the process totally. * Properly jabbered minutes can suffice as the basis from which a summary can be made. No they cannot - and this is a grossly incompetent statement - it is unfounded and ANY auditor or reviewer of the processes of the IETF's would tell you this is not true from a forensics standpoint. Sorry... but each stream from any meeting needs its own Table of Contents and if the streams are not equal to each other then there is an issue. However, * All of this depends on a fully functional network, something that we cannot yet take for granted. Although it generally performed well, there were a few hiccups. The IETF is then 'getting' that there is a mechanical cost to the processes yit wants to use eh? cool... a little reality is good now and then. While we can aspire for more reliability, I don't think we should predicate our minutes on it. So then what you are saying is that truth in the meeting process is not important and that the IETF is above reporach... You realize that putting such a plan as this in place may open the participant's in a meeting to litigation against the IETF and that group as a whole, which would permanently end all the efforts for participating in the IETF that anyone with SOX or other regulatory requirements would be stuck under... * While the audio was generally VERY good this last conference (I relied on it for the few meetings I took part in), there were a few bad patches. I view jabbering and audio as quite complimentary. * The side conversations in the jabber log to me are often as relevant as what's being said by individuals. In the case of WAE, there were several very lively discussions, including one that contained facts that caught an AD by surprise. * Regarding input to the microphone, a better solution than having the jabber scribe voice a remote participant's comment would be to find a way for the remote participant to actually voice it. I wonder if this isn't an area we could ask the IAD and interested volunteers to explore, and perhaps experiment with. VoIP solution from Cisco for the Meetings? Eliot ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Minutes and jabber logs
David Harrington wrote: Hi, I would not like to see raw jabber logs included as part of the minutes. The signal-to-noise ratio is way too low in many meetings. Jabber logs written by a scribe do not do a good job representing the body language and the nuances of speech that may be important to really understand what a person said. That is certainly true, but I am not sure if jabber logs are any different in this respect from regular minutes. I would also be concerned that there are side-discussions in jabber that are not relayed to the whole room; including those side conversations as a reflection of what was said in the meeting is simply misleading. I've mostly had an opposite experience: several active WG participants of the WG I was chairing couldn't attend in person and their side conversations were as valuable as comments made during face-to-face meetings. It is the chair's job to provide a summary of the meeting for the mailing list to see what was discussed and decided. I do not think the chair should be allowed to evade this responsibility by simply posting a quick summary and the raw jabber logs to the mailing list as the official minutes. I agree that using raw minutes as the minutes is a bad idea. I've always edited jabber logs before producing meeting notes. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Minutes and jabber logs
On 17-jul-2006, at 17:53, David Harrington wrote: Jabber logs written by a scribe do not do a good job representing the body language and the nuances of speech that may be important to really understand what a person said. People should know better than to use body language and nuances of speech that don't translate into text to convey content in a multi- cultural environment such as the IETF. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
