On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 21:33:05 -0400 Sandy Wills <sandy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Marshall Eubanks wrote (talking about recording IESG meetings): > > > > My experience is that recordings tend to shut some people up... > > > > Jumping in with both feet here: > > I have never been to an IETF or IESG meeting, but I have seen > countless examples of this. Marshall is correct. > On the other hand, I have found it to be a pretty firm rule that the > things that don't get said are things that shouldn't have been said in > the first place. > In other words, the speakers at these meetings are _already_ aware > that they are publicly speaking and making decisions as representatives > of a group. If someone in such a position is only willing to say > something if he (she) knows he'll never get called on his words, then > his words don't have much value anyway. > But my understanding is that IESG meetings are not open, so they are not speaking publicly now. This gets back to the ability to subpoena such recordings. If sensitive issues are going to be discussed, then in practice they can't be recorded, since you can't really be sure what will happen to the recordings. (The person doing the recording could be met by a process server as he or she sits down to edit them, for example.) So,in practice, either the IESG will have to have all meetings be open, or have some meetings or parts of meetings not recorded. My experience with corporate boards makes me suspect that in the latter case a two tier meeting structure might evolve, with the real business being conducted in "executive session." I am neutral about the recording issue; I am just trying to point out some implications. Regards Marshall > (I spent 20 years in the military. The most direct way to find out if a > superior will admit later having given a particular order, is to ask for > it in writing with signature. You are bluntly telling him -in front of > all whithin hearing- that you don't trust him to take responsibility if > there's no evidence. If the superior refuses, then you -and everyone in > hearing- know you were right to challenge him; he'll claim Alzheimer's > later.) > > Directed towards the IESG: > Recording meetings, and publishing those recordings, may be a > hassle, but it answers all questions about the integrity of the > decision-making process. There may still be questions about knowledge > and wisdom, but you put to rest all questions about integrity. Refusing > to record (for whatever reason*), after having been asked (for whatever > reason) by the people you represent, says something rather different. > > <sarcasm> > * Perhaps the disk space required is too expensive? > </sarcasm> > > > ...Plus, if they exist, they are subject to subpoena. > > I don't understand this comment. How is this bad? Again, these are our > public representatives, chosen for their knowledge, experience, and > integrity. How can the possibility of being held to their words > possibly be bad? > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf