My thoughts about the problems of the IETF

[Bound, Jim]

These are almost :--) PERFECT.  Good example yes.
/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian at hursley.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 7:28 AM
> To: Jonne.Soininen at nokia.com
> Cc: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: My thoughts about the problems of the IETF
> 
> 
> What do you think about recent IAB minutes, as far as the 
> level of detail goes?
> 
> Historically, IAB minutes have varied between very detailed 
> (e.g. 1991) and very brief (e.g. 1998); but recently they 
> have been somewhere 
> in the middle.
> 
> http://www.iab.org/IABmins/index.html
> 
>    Brian
> 
> Jonne.Soininen at nokia.com wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
>