I also agree that the minutes are the most complete/official record we have. Jari On Sep 6, 2013, at 1:40 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I tend to agree with Pete - the minutes are more like an official > record, as well. BTW, the IESG Charter (RFC 3710) says: > > "The IESG publishes a record of decisions from its meetings on the > Internet,..." > > In any case, apart from this detail, I think the draft is good to go. > > Brian > > On 06/09/2013 10:20, Pete Resnick wrote: >> On 9/5/13 2:45 PM, Scott O Bradner wrote: >>> looks good to me except that maybe using the IETF Announce list rather >>> than >>> IESG minutes as the publication of record >>> >> >> The only reason I went with the IESG minutes is because they do state >> the "pending" actions too, as well as the completed ones, which the IETF >> Announce list does not. For instance, the IESG minutes say things like: >> >> "The document remains under discussion by the IESG in order to resolve >> points raised by..." >> >> "The document was approved by the IESG pending an RFC Editor Note to be >> prepared by..." >> >> "The document was deferred to the next teleconference by..." >> >> The minutes also of course reflect all of the approvals. So they do seem >> to more completely replace what that paragraph as talking about. And we >> have archives of IESG minutes back to 1991; we've only got IETF Announce >> back to 2004. >> >> I'm not personally committed to going one way or the other. The minutes >> just seemed to me the more complete record. >> >> pr >>