>>>>> "John" == John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> writes:
John> Let me be clear. For most WGs and purposes, most of the time,
John> the "minutes" are the minutes and I'm certainly not going to
John> be the one who makes a big fuss about clarity or literacy
John> unless they are so incomplete and incompetent that posting
John> them becomes a joke. _However_ if a WG wants to make/be an
John> exception to the principle that consensus has to be
John> demonstrated on the mailing list and instead wants to rely on
John> face to face discussions, than that WG is, IMO, obligated to
John> have minutes complete and comprehensible enough that someone
John> who did not participate in the meeting, even remotely, can
John> determine what went on and why and hence whether the proposed
John> solution or agreement is acceptable. If the WG cannot produce
John> such minutes, then I think it is obligated to be able to
John> demonstrate consensus from the mailing list discussions alone.
Unfortunately demonstraiting discussions based on the mailing list alone
also opens latitude for appeals. According to RFc 2418, chairs must
combine the face-to-face discussions and mailing lists when judging
consensus.
If I as a participant believe that the face-to-face discussions when
added to the mailing list discussion would change the outcome and the
chairs say they are only considering the mailing list discussions, I
have valid grounds for an appeal.
Take a look at the discussions surrounding the IPv6 site-local appeal
and particular at the responses generated at the IAB and IESG level for
some of our historical thinking on this.
Personally I'd strongly support an update to RFC 2418 that
allowed|encouraged|required chairs to take a consensus call entirely to
the list .