Hi John, Thanks for your advise and comments. I prefered that consensus is documented to know its value/level as was it 60% or 70% or 80%...etc. How do Chairs in IETF decide on the agree/disagree/no-reply from WGs " Note that 51% of the working group does not qualify as "rough consensus" and 99% is better than rough. It is up to the Chair to determine if rough consensus has been reached." I see that minutes just mention WG agreed to ..., but would suggest the value, so it does not become below 51%. Also, most participants need more time to decide on such request from Chairs because they use their variable-available-volunteering time to do reading/work within each 28 days. Regards AB --- On 8/28/12, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > --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 > > >