On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Scott Brim wrote: > On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 05:54:25PM -0700, Randy Presuhn allegedly wrote: > > Hi - > > > > Relatively few WG minute takers pay much > > attention to the Mortimer/Agnes/Duane bullet in > > http://www.ietf.org/instructions/minutes.html > > > > Is it time to update the web page to reflect actual practice? > > > > Might it be easier to get people to take minutes if they > > realized that we're not asking for blow-by-blow transcripts? > > > > Some of these meeting notes that capture (some of) the words > > but miss the point of the discussion. > > That last point is a useful one, but when I can't be at a meeting I > strongly prefer blow-by-blow transcripts, even babbling, over just > results. I want Meeting Notes with enough detail that I can pick out > the motivations and other nuances. "Minutes", for the Proceedings, > should not exclude them. I haven't written minutes for any IETF meeting myself, so perhaps I shouldn't comment. But on the page: 'They should not follow a "Mortimer said," then "Agnes said," then "Duane said," format, nor should they contain a detailed list of changes to a document. While these forms may be helpful to the folks who actually attend the sessions, they are less helpful to those who have a more general interest in the groups' activities.' This makes an implicit assumption that anyone reading minutes is only "generally interested" in the group's activities. I thought attendance in meetings for w.g. members was not supposed to be necessary in the IETF? -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords