--On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 11:17 +0100 Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi > > Reading through some IETF WGs minutes of meetings, is it > possible that we follow a procedure in writting minutes. > I think the following items are important that SHOULD be > included: > > 1) name of the chair, minute taker, and jabber reader. > 2) number of participant in the meeting room. > 3) number of participants at jabber. It seems to me that the latter two would fall somewhere between "useless" and "misleading". I don't have any idea how to count "participants" in the meeting room. The only numbers that are reasonably easy to capture are the number of people who signed the blue sheets, but that doesn't capture either non-signers or those who sign and then sit in the room and pay more attention to email or other topics than the meeting. If we used the number of people signed into Jabber for anything, we'd create a count that was extremely easy to pack as well as not distinguishing between people who were on Jabber but in the room, on Jabber but elsewhere at the IETF meeting (conflicts or couldn't be bothered to attend), remote and actively following the meeting, or others (and there are likely to be some others). I could see somewhat more value if actual names and organizational affiliations were listed, but the community has (for plausible reasons, IMO) decided to not do that. This is just a personal opinion/request, but I would really appreciate it if you (or others making procedural suggestions/requests like this) would carefully think through the implications of what they are asking for and how the information would be used before making the request. It would be even better if you then included an explanation of the value that you think would occur, and maybe the tradeoffs you see, with the request, not just "is it possible that we follow a procedure...". That would have an advantage for you too because such suggestions are more likely to be taken seriously by more people in the IETF rather than, in the extreme case, going unread because you have developed a history of bad and/or unjustified ideas. regards, john