Jabber Logs are part of NOTEWELL and if they are not maintaned then NOTEWELL is a bigger problem than it already is. Sorry... if NOTEWELL is put in place to capture participation - then ***all*** participation must be captured and available to anyone reviewing any initiative...
Todd Glassey, CISM CIFI
as an IT Auditor
-----Original Message-----
>From: Spencer Dawkins <spencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Jul 18, 2006 8:02 AM
>To: ietf@xxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: Minutes and jabber logs
>
>Sorry, I should have responded to the first notes on-list...
>
>
>> Just a reminder of what our process rules (RFC 2418) say:
>>
>> All working group sessions (including those held outside of the IETF
>> meetings) shall be reported by making minutes available. These
>> minutes should include the agenda for the session, an account of the
>> discussion including any decisions made, and a list of attendees. The
>> Working Group Chair is responsible for insuring that session minutes
>> are written and distributed, though the actual task may be performed
>> by someone designated by the Working Group Chair. The minutes shall
>> be submitted in printable ASCII text ...
>>
>> We don't insist on the list of attendees when that is in the blue sheets,
>> but it's clear that the minutes have to be readable ("an account of the
>> discussion including any decisions made") and that is not usually
>> the state of a raw jabber log. It's important, since the decisions taken
>> in a meeting have to be confirmed on the list - if the minutes are
>> properly written, it's enough to ask for agreement on the minutes.
>>
>> A carefully edited jabber log can of course be just fine.
>
>You know, there was a day when "he said/she said" minutes were actually
>discouraged at the IETF... not that I've found a pointer to that written
>down anywhere, but people often pointed this out when I started volunteering
>to take notes (somewhere around the Yokohama timeframe).
>
>Since this was my suggestion, I should point out that my "carefully edited"
>NON-jabber minutes look a heckuva lot like what working group chairs often
>post as their minutes, without summary, in the proceedings.
>
>My opinion, which is not the only one available on earth, is that
>
>if one working group chair (and preferably all of the working group's
>chairs) reviews careful jabber logs, which I was suggesting could be checked
>for accuracy by anyone else participating in the meeting, either onsite or
>remotely, while the jabbering scribe was still typing, and
>
>reviews the audio for anything that is still unclear and violates either
>memory or sanity, and
>
>then summarizes the accummulated notes in a clear fashion saying
>
>- these were the topics,
>
>- these were the issues that were discussed,
>
>- these were the major points that were raised,
>
>- these were the sense-of-the-room calls that will be verified on the
>mailing list,
>
>and then sends the summary, pointers to the presentations, pointers to the
>jabber log, and pointers to the audio to the working group mailing list for
>review, which is a lot more likely to happen with a summary,
>
>and then posts all of this to the proceedings,
>
>that would be a great leap forward from what is produced today.
>
>For reference, my (non-jabber) notes from Montreal were
>
>BEHAVE - 19KB
>SIP - 31 KB
>SIPPING -52 KB
>SIPSEC - 14 KB
>
>and, since I'm rereading them today for my own trip report, it's not that
>easy to go through the non-jabber notes, either.
>
>*I* wish that I'd had help from other people in producing them, and the only
>way I know how to collaboratively produce this kind of semi-transcript is
>using jabber. Other opinions may be present on this mailing list...
>
>Thanks,
>
>Spencer
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf mailing list
>Ietf@xxxxxxxx
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf