My thoughts about the problems of the IETF

[Bound, Jim]

Folks go look at Maragret and Bob's IPv6 minutes they are good examples
for me.
Also pointers to any slides in a meeting are always good.
I do think he/she said is bad in all minutes and just the bottom line
provided.  Which will reduce the work effort.
/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonne.Soininen at nokia.com [mailto:Jonne.Soininen at nokia.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 5:52 AM
> To: hardie at qualcomm.com
> Cc: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: RE: My thoughts about the problems of the IETF
> 
> 
> Hi Ted,
> 
> I just try to write a few lines more to explain what I mean. 
> I certainly do not want a transcript. I believe you are 100% 
> right that transcripts are definitely not useful, and are 
> also too much of a burden for the writer of transcripts.
> 
> Good minutes to my opinion describe briefly the discussion, 
> and the position of the different parties/people involved in 
> the discussion. In addition, they then give the result of the 
> discussion and agreed actions. The current minutes show the 
> result, and the agreed actions, but do not reflect the actual 
> discussion. I also makes it impossible to see what positions 
> did individual people take in the IESG discussions. Along 
> with the agendas this would give a good overview of what IESG 
> is doing, and what direction certain discussions are taking. 
> 
> I hope this helps rather than confuses even more... ;)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Jonne.
> 
> 
> > Jonne,
> > 	I think what are produced really are meeting minutes,
> > and I suspect
> > you want something different (a transcript, possibly?).    Meeting 
> > minutes
> > that adopt a "he said/she said" format end up being difficult
> > to extract the salient information from (what was decided?  who is 
> > holding
> > the token for a particular action?).  Rather than have every reader
> > do it for herself or himself, the format that exists now has evolved
> > to try to capture that data for later reference.
> > 	The "he said" "she said" version of a current IESG meeting
> > would be boring (at least to me), as the ADs are required to send 
> > DISCUSS
> > comments in writing in advance.  What might be better would be
> > a version of the minutes that included links to the tracked 
> comments,
> > so that you could easily follow from the action item to the ballot.
> > As an example, the decision that draft-ietf-group-draft remained
> > under discussion would be linked to:
> > 
> > https://www.ietf.org/IESG/EVALUATIONS/draft-ietf-group-draft.bal,
> > 
> > so you could follow up immediately.  I think that would 
> give you a far 
> > better view into the real issues than trying to read through a doc 
> > that included each of us going "Which draft are we on?" at 
> least once 
> > per session.  Using links rather than included docs means, 
> of course, 
> > that you need to read it online, but an email-friendly 
> version could 
> > probably also be developed.
> > 	Since this is problem statement, let me suggest that 
> the problem here 
> > is lack of visibility into the IESG discussions which 
> effect progress 
> > of documents.
> > 					regards,
> > 							Ted Hardie
> > 
> > 		
> > 
> > On Monday, May 5, 2003, at 02:38 PM, 
> <Jonne.Soininen at nokia.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi Keith,
> > >
> > >> well, any actual objections to protocol actions have to be
> > written up,
> > >> rather than merely mentioned in a telechat, in order to have any 
> > >> effect.  and those are now available in the tracking system.
> > >>
> > >> it may be that IESG meetings are more boring than you thought.
> > >>
> > >
> > > You may be right. However, the good thing about meeting minutes is
> > > that you can skip over things. Actually, it is sometimes 
> better to 
> > > read the minutes than be present in the meetings... ;)
> > >
> > > However, I would really find real minutes useful, and I would not
> > > believe that it imposes impossible work load for the IESG.
> > >
> > >>> In addition, what I would like to see is also the
> > >>> IESG meeting agendas (before the meetings), and the meeting
> > >> calendar.
> > >>
> > >> I doubt it would be difficult or controversial to provide
> > either one.
> > >> but again, the document tracker pretty much provides 
> these things 
> > >> already.
> > >
> > > I find ID tracker extremely useful, but I still believe
> > that it serves
> > > a bit of a different purpose than meeting minutes. I 
> think they are
> > > complementing things instead of mutually exclusive. I think they 
> > > should hold a bit of different topics (e.g. WG creation, charter 
> > > discussions)
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Jonne.
> > >
> > 
> > 
>