Subject: [edu-team] Quality of IETF minutes

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 14:32:33 +0200

Ray Pelletier was commenting to me on the inconsistent quality of
minutes from IETF WG meetings. He's wondering about what can be done
to improve them by adding support, but that made me wonder whether
the EDU team should offer some training in writing good minutes.

    Brian

_______________________________________________
edu-team mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-team

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 08:36:04 -0700

>the EDU team should offer some training in writing good minutes.

This is pretty difficult because minutes-takers are often chosen at 
the last moment, sitting in the meeting. Even if they're known in 
advance, they probably would not come to a session on Sunday with 
that narrow of a topic.

If we want to deal with this problem, a *short* written piece might be best.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:29:53 -0500

I agree with Paul on the narrow scope, but am wondering - is this a
request for WG secretary training, lurking in the shadows?

(Step 1, ask WGs to identify secretaries, step 2, train them)

Spencer

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 15:25:49 +0200

That's another way to look at it. In some standards bodies,
the position of rapporteur/secretary is more powerful in reality
than that of chair. In any case, I think this is an area where
some kind of training or guidance is needed.

    Brian

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:31:44 -0400

yes, we should encourage WGs to produce better minutes.  It is not a
positive feature that minutes are all over the map in terms of
content. That note takers are often recruited at the last minute
(sometimes with no knowledge of whether said notetaker will take
decent notes) is also a problem, not a feature.

IMO, it would help to have some basic guidelines in terms of what the
minutes SHOULD contain. Indeed, Dave Meyer has an (expired) draft on
the topic:

    http://bgp.potaroo.net/ietf/all-ids/draft-meyer-wg-post-meeting-03.txt

Also, what would probably help must is a short "do it this way" type
recommendation on what WGs should actually do. Personally, I'd like to
see all minutes start with a short "executive" summary that highlights
the main decisions. E.g., stuff like:

  - draft-foo will be revised once more and then go to WGLC, authors
    to respin within 2 weeks
  - draft-bar WGLC completed, no issues raised; ready to send to IESG
  - draft-muddy-protocol- was discussed, but no consensus to adopt; further
    discussion on the mailing list.
  - draft-really-bad-idea: much opposition; author needs to address
    concerns and show there is WG support for the proposed approach
  - draft-wg-foo: consensus in room for 3 of 5 proposed changes, to be
    verified on list. remaining issue taken to list.
    
  and so forth.

Note: if done correctly, the summary could be used for the
newsletter. I.e., the target audience is not just the WG, but others
who are following the WG from a distance.
   
Thomas

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 18:25:38 +0200

This may be a case where examples work best: a fictitious example
of good and bad minutes for the same fictitious meeting. It would
be fun to write, too.

    Brian

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 09:37:07 -0700

Isn't there something in the Tao or some other IETF document about a WG
Secretary? This is supposed to be a position like Document Editor that runs
for the life of the WG. I recall some discussion about this a while back on
one of IETF process lists set up post-Yoko.

            jak

---

From: Susan Harris <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 12:48:42 -0400 (EDT)

> one of IETF process lists set up post-Yoko.

Not in the Tao (yet.)

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 10:36:25 -0700

At 9:37 AM -0700 6/20/05, James Kempf wrote:
>Secretary?

Nope.

>  This is supposed to be a position like Document Editor that runs
>for the life of the WG.

Not according to the RFCs that I have seen. It is a nebulous and 
ill-defined position.

>  I recall some discussion about this a while back on

There has been lots, also on wg-chairs. But nothing has happened 
(that I know of) to codify their position.

In many WGs, the secretary takes the minutes, but in many others, 
she/he doesn't.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 19:25:20 +0200

>> one of IETF process lists set up post-Yoko.

It's mentioned in 2418

    Brian