Hi, I would not like to see raw jabber logs included as part of the minutes. The signal-to-noise ratio is way too low in many meetings. Jabber logs written by a scribe do not do a good job representing the body language and the nuances of speech that may be important to really understand what a person said. I would also be concerned that there are side-discussions in jabber that are not relayed to the whole room; including those side conversations as a reflection of what was said in the meeting is simply misleading. It is the chair's job to provide a summary of the meeting for the mailing list to see what was discussed and "decided". I do not think the chair should be allowed to evade this responsibility by simply posting a quick summary and the raw jabber logs to the mailing list as the official minutes. David Harrington dharrington@xxxxxxxxxx dbharrington@xxxxxxxxxxx ietfdbh@xxxxxxxxxxx > -----Original Message----- > From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:spencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 11:18 AM > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Meetings in other regions > > > That said, and given the difficulties of balancing competing > > priorities in site location, it seems reasonable to me to make > > a decent, good-faith effort without getting overly bogged down > > in "where should we meet?" discussions, and really try to get > > the remote participation thing nailed down a little better. The > > ratio of good to bad remote meeting input has improved a lot > > over the past year or so but there are still too many working > > groups without a Jabber scribe in the room (which prevents remote > > listeners from providing inputs), etc. > > OK, this is only a thought, and I'm out of the process > improvement business > anyway, but I've been seeing a consistent improvement in the > quality of > jabber logs for at least two years, and I'm wondering if > there are working > groups who would be willing to try "minutes = chair summary > plus jabber > logs" for a few IETFs (without what we usually think of as "detailed > minutes"), and see if this is actually workable. > > I'm a many-time repeat offender as WG note-taker, and am > watching my notes > look more and more like a jabber log with only one jabberer; > the advantages > of jabber (in my experience) are > > - it's nice for the note-taker to be able to participate in > the meeting - as > an extreme case, in the SIPPING Ad Hoc on Friday, Gonzalo and > Mary handed me > the mike about twenty times, but very litte of what I said > appeared in the > notes, and it's worse when someone is already talking when I > stop talking. > That's typical in my experience. With Jabber, people can type > until I get > back to my seat. > > - It's really nice when I misquote, or mis-attribute, > something that was > said and another jabberer corrects it right away. This is SO > much better > than the WG chair having to listen to the audio stream to > check my notes > after some number of days has elapsed (and sometimes all the > chair can tell > from the audio is that I got it wrong, without knowing what > "right" would > have been). > > - and, obviously, this works better for remote participants > (what's the > alternative - send e-mail to the list?) > > Now that all this stuff is on the IETF website, it should be > more enduring > than if the jabber rooms and logs were hosted somewhere else. > > Of course, Jabber has to work; our wireless network has been > pretty solid > the last couple of meetings, but even so, if you offer a > Jabber scribe an > Ethernet connection and guaranteed power at the front of the > room, that > would be pretty compelling for me, most IETFs. > > Thanks, > > Spencer > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf