Just on a practical matter, many of us WG chairs like to get the minutes uploaded as quickly as possible, before the blue sheet numbers are available. Like John, I fail to see the value of recording the number of people sitting in chairs, except to size the room for the next meeting. One of the most productive WGs I ever participated in usually had fewer than 10 people at a meeting, but every single one of those people contributed to the documents. Regarding consensus, that's a different matter altogether, and one you didn't mention in your original email. In most WGs (certainly in mine), consensus is not determined in the meeting, but on the list. In the minutes, we'll sometimes report on the "sense of the room", but it's nothing more than that. Cheers, Andy On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 >> >> >>