I THINK this is the right e-mail to follow up to... 1. I know I found the JABBER logs for TRIGTRAN to be very useful in vetting our minutes (what did we MISS, who really said that, what was that person's last name - can't count on this last, but it's another pair of eyes in a relatively small community). 2. I've been taking minutes at every session I attend for the last two or three IETFs, and they've tended to be "he said/she said" in nature. I've usually gotten thank-yous from working group chairs for this form of minutes, and I've gotten what-was-the-points from several other readers. I'm thinking working group chairs would benefit a lot from video archives, and some readers probably would benefit from transcripts, but even text transcripts for a five-day, six-or-so-track meeting aren't THAT easy to blast through - digesting the blow-by-blow is still the most important ingredient, and the hardest to farm out... Spencer > -----Original Message----- > From: Theodore Ts'o [mailto:tytso@mit.edu] > Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 8:47 AM > To: Randy Bush > Cc: Marshall Rose; ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: movies vs chat logs > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 10:33:58PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote: > > > > i have used jabber in ietf meetings and similarcontexts. it works > > to coordinate stuff in real-time. but that was not my application > > this time. i really was after the as much content of the meeting > > as possible. to do that well in jabber or whatever, one would have > > to pay a court transcription person. whereas, as someone already > > pointed out, a cheap video camera does the job. > > On the other hand, it's much faster and convenient to scan (and > search) a text transcript compared to viewing a video feed. It also > takes up less space to store. It's extremely amusing to think of a > scribe as a compression algorithm, but that's basically what's going > on. Unfortunately, as always, compression can sometimes be expensive. > > In some cases we might be able to get cheap grad students. Or perhaps > we could find people who would be willing to transcribe 2 or 3 wg > sessions that they aren't otherwise participating in exchange for a > deep discount on their registration fee? There would need to be some > quality control (maybe the wg chair has to certify afterwards that the > transcript was an accurate record of the proceedings), but it would > help make much better minutes. > > Of course, there are some downsides to having a non-participant scribe > or take minutes for a meeting. Someone who is familiar with the > background, context, and (unfortunately, sometimes) jargon of a > working group can often take better minutes than an outsider. On the > other hand, it is very hard to take good minutes and/or scribe while > participating in the discussion, and often the minutes will suffer for > those portions of the meeting where the minute-taker also wants to > join into the discussion. (Or stand in line at the mike, etc.) > > That being said, though, I think that if the scribe was comprehensive > enough, and the text was then immediately reviewed by the wg chairs > and other core participants in the meeting, while the discusions was > still fresh in their minds, the result might be a much *better* record > of what happened than the current system of taking minutes for the > meeting. > > - Ted > > > _______________________________________________ > This message was passed through > ietf_censored@carmen.ipv6.cselt.it, which is a sublist of > ietf@ietf.org. Not all messages are passed. Decisions on what > to pass are made solely by Raffaele D'Albenzio. >