Brian E Carpenter <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>The two points are linked. The IESG gets to make some decisions about >>>people. "X is a lousy WG chair, but Y is the only plausible replacement, >>>and she works for Z so would have a commercial interest in the >>>outcome. So we have to put up with X." I think people wouldn't say that >>>on a call that was being recorded for posterity, precisely because it might >>>be sub poenaed. >>> >>>Whereas the narrative minutes would say >>>"The IESG discussed the Foobar WG and agreed with the AD's proposal to >>>continue with the current WG chair." >> The logical conclusion to that problem is to edit out those parts of >> the recording before making it public. Editing audio is roughly as >> difficult as writing down narrative minutes these days. That >> filtering and editing process is required when writing minutes too, so >> it is not like an entirely new process is required. Listeners would >> have to listen to the recording and read the minutes to get the >> complete publicly available information. > > I'm sorry, I *really* don't think this would be practical. Editing written > notes is much easier and quicker then editing audio, and can be done > anywhere the scribe's laptop can be opened. It depends on the scribe I guess. I would expect anyone who wanted to do a decent job as a scribe would record the discussion and go over it once or twice anyway. But having one recording a year, like Sam suggested, would indeed be useful too. As noted, however, it would not have any significant technical use, except as an introduction to the culture in IESG. Thanks, Simon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf