Re: Barely literate minutes

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 11/28/12 4:45 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

On 11/28/12 2:45 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:

ps. I'll repeat that I think f2f needs to be essentially irrelevant
to the assessment of wg consensus, except perhaps as an efficiency
hack that permits more terse exchanges on the mailing list.
That's a separate topic, but I tend to disagree. Why the heck even
have meetings? And I concur with Marc Blanchet that some WGs really
gel and make good progress in person but don't have great threads on
the mailing list.

It is a fact of life that some WGs only make progress face-to-face. I think that's often a sign of a problem, but it's a fact. But if that happens, the chair needs to (with the help of minutes takers and other participants) post detailed notes of the discussion to the list and ask for objections. That serves two functions: (a) It makes a record of work that was done; and (b) it gives people who don't attend meetings (including new folks who come along) a chance to participate and voice their concerns. *Achievement* of consensus might have to occur f2f for some issues in some WGs, but it seems to me that *assessment* of consensus must be completely possible on the list, even if the only poster to the list is the chair with all of the f2f notes.

pr

--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]