On 2/3/13 7:38 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > > On 2/3/2013 10:28 AM, Sam Hartman wrote: >> I'm not sure I've ever been involved with a WG where you could have >> gotten consensus on any of the above enough to publish it. Nor can I >> think of many WGs that have the excess energy to do this work. Even >> getting consensus on a summary of where you ended up is quite >> tricky. > > > Getting consensus on the details of a history is much more difficult > than on a technical spec... > > So don't try. +1. In fact in the ITU context they will sometimes spend half a day on a meeting report. I really don't think we want to go there. What I would like not to have happen is that we spend any time bickering over who said what, especially if it detracts from the business of developing excellent standards. I think your point, Dave, about synthesis being left to historians is a good one, and I might go farther, and say that the whole endeavor should be. But having at least a record from individauls about what *they* said or meant is, I suppose, not unreasonable. Eliot