> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 10:12 AM > To: IETF discussion list > Subject: Re: Barely literate minutes > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Pete Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > ... > > 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. > > What I would prefer to see is that in addition to minutes there be separate messages posted to > the list for each document, detailing the discussion of that document in the meeting and the > changes that will result from the discussion. That can be posted by the chair, but I'd really > expect it to come from a document editor. That makes sure that everyone can see what the > document editor heard and intends to do with the document, and allows the working group to > continue the discussion or say, "Yes, that's what we heard as well, and it's fine." As a document author, I've learned that I need to have a friend take good notes for me, because all of the great comments I get at the mike are lost otherwise. I can't take notes while I'm standing up, facilitating discussion. As a working group chair I take my own notes, as backup to the note-taker, then merge the notes. Lee