Subject: RE: [Asrg] ASRG meeting minutes

From: Paul Judge <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 11:35:22 -0400

>   Not to be rude, but minutes are supposed to be rough 
> transcripts of what happened, not *filtered* transcripts.  
> It's bad procedure to intentionally leave items out of the 
> minutes, as it gives non-attendees a distorted view of what happened.

Russell volunteered to record minutes and provided a valid set of minutes.
He has already stated that he reviewed his notes and feels that he captured
"anything substantive". Therefore, your claim that anything was
intentionally left out is incorrect and inappropriate.

Your expectations of minutes are flawed. The minutes are not intended to be
transcripts, but rather a "thorough summary of the issues discussed during
the working group/BOF sessions".
http://www.ietf.org/instructions/minutes.html

I sent the minutes to the list for review about a week ago. If you have
anything that you feel is missing that would help to provide a thorough
summary to those not in attendance, then you can reply with that information
to the list. However, if you have any more accusations about the volunteers,
it would be appropriate to send those directly to me or the individual, not
to the list.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: "Alan DeKok" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 12:15:23 -0400

> intentionally left out is incorrect and inappropriate.

  My contention was that the minutes were incomplete, not that there
was any intention to deceive, or to leave substantive portions out.

> http://www.ietf.org/instructions/minutes.html

  I did say "rough transcripts", not "complete transcripts".

  As posted, the minutes summarized the talks, and gave little more
information.  If that is sufficient, then a simple re-post of the
agenda, with pointers to HTML versions of the talks would appear to be
adequate minutes.

  I'm not comfortable with that concept.

> summary to those not in attendance, then you can reply with that information

  I agree.  I have nothing substantive to add to the minutes, as I
didn't make my own record of what was happening.  I failed to speak up
a week ago, because I felt that my lack of additional information
would prevent me from making a positive contribution to the minutes.

  My concern was that (as a matter of process), issues brought up in
questions may not have been brought up in the prepared talks, and that
those additional issues should generally be reflected in any minutes.

>  However, if you have any more accusations about the volunteers,

  If my comments appeared to be an accusation, I apologize to Russell,
and to the group.

  Alan DeKok.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 07:33:48 -0700 (PDT)

I'd like to add that while meeting minutes do not contain any incorrect 
information, they are very very very brief. As such there is a lot there 
that is missing both of what has been parts of presentations and even more 
of the comments that were being made. And perhaps this is better off as 
well, as meeting itself and many (but not all!) of the comments were not 
productive. But for the future I think it will be better to do a lot more 
detailed minutes or perhaps two persons doing minutes - one intentionally 
brief and another version that is detailed.