On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 06:55:55 -0700 (PDT) Ned Freed <ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > --On torsdag, juli 14, 2005 21:33:05 -0400 Sandy Wills <sandy@xxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > > 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. > > > I'm sorry to be this blunt, but... > > > Nonsense. > > > Anyone who has watched the on-stage, recorded, extremely-public board > > meetings of ICANN and has also watched the multitude of conspiracy theories > > about the ICANN board knows that conspiracy theorists will take the > > existence of a recording as proof that the REAL conspiracy was going on > > somewhere else, and what was recorded was an orchestrated public charade. > > You are, of course, correct. But guess what: This is one where the conspiracy > theorists are actually partly right. They know good and well that there are in > fact plenty of private conversations and off the record exchanges going on > behind the scenes. There have to be. > > Like it or not, the members any small group charged with making important > decisions need to be able to communicate off the record. > Indeed. And if you are foolish enough to try and stop it, it will just go underground. > Having been on the IESG, I can tell you that private communication with other > IESG members is very common, if only because bothering the entire IESG with > every small issue that comes up would be a huge time waster for the group as > whole. So any notion that recording IESG meetings will capture the process in > its entirety is simply silly. > > As for atually recording the meetings, I'm pretty ambivalent about that. For > one thing, I think people are seriously underestimating the amount of time and > effort that would be needed to make this work. And for another, I don't think > it improves transparency nearly as much as people think it will. OTOH, the > added insight it would provide to general IETF participants about how the IESG > operates would be a very good thing. Perhaps the right thing to do is to record > 1-2 meetings a year, as someone else suggested. I agree about the time required to process the recordings. Someone _who is knowledgeable about IESG sensitivities_ would have to listen to every word and mark edits, someone would have to edit the recording into some sort of package, the IESG would probably want to review it, and it would have to be posted. This would chew up a lot of time, including a fair amount of IESG time. Here is an alternate suggestion : The IESG could have open meetings at selected IETF meetings. Since the infrastructure is already there, these could be webcast and recorded at no additional cost, except to everyone's already overburdened schedules (and a little for media and disk space). Since those meetings would be open, the recordings would not need to be edited. And, those who really are interested could attend in person, and maybe even ask questions. Regards Marshall > > > Been there, done that, no cigar. > > Anyone with corporate board experience has been there as well. Or school board > experience. Or, for that matter, corridor conversations at IETF meetings. > There's certainly no shortage of examples. > > Ned > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf