--On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 16:11 -0500 Scott Brim
<swb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/28/12 15:53, John C Klensin allegedly wrote:
>> Let me be clear. For most WGs and purposes, most of the time,
>> the "minutes" are the minutes and I'm certainly not going to
>> be the one who makes a big fuss about clarity or literacy
>> unless they are so incomplete and incompetent that posting
>> them becomes a joke. _However_ if a WG wants to make/be an
>> exception to the principle that consensus has to be
>> demonstrated on the mailing list and instead wants to rely on
>> face to face discussions, than that WG is, IMO, obligated to
>> have minutes complete and comprehensible enough that someone
>> who did not participate in the meeting, even remotely, can
>...
> ... and in those cases it is very important that the "minutes"
> (although I would avoid that as a pre-loaded term) cover as
> much of the arguments as possible. A reader on the mailing
> list will be utterly shortchanged if all he/she gets are
> conclusions and action points. In the past, individual WGs
> have argued about whether to include actual names in the
> meeting notes. Personally I'm in favor but even without them,
> at least the issues and pros and cons of a significant
> decision must be documented in detail.
Yes, exactly.
john