Subject: Minutes SHOULD include participants number

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:17:49 +0100

Hi

Reading through some IETF WGs minutes of meetings, is it possible that we
follow a procedure in writting minutes.
I think the following items are important that SHOULD be included:

1) name of the chair, minute taker, and jabber reader.
2) number of participant in the meeting room.
3) number of participants at jabber.

Regards
AB

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:21:54 -0400

--On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 11:17 +0100 Abdussalam Baryun
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi
> 
> Reading through some IETF WGs minutes of meetings, is it
> possible that we follow a procedure in writting minutes.

It seems to me that the latter two would fall somewhere between
"useless" and "misleading".  I don't have any idea how to count
"participants" in the meeting room.  The only numbers that are
reasonably easy to capture are the number of people who signed
the blue sheets, but that doesn't capture either non-signers or
those who sign and then sit in the room and pay more attention
to email or other topics than the meeting.  If we used the
number of people signed into Jabber for anything, we'd create a
count that was extremely easy to pack as well as not
distinguishing between people who were on Jabber but in the
room, on Jabber but elsewhere at the IETF meeting (conflicts or
couldn't be bothered to attend), remote and actively following
the meeting, or others (and there are likely to be some others).

I could see somewhat more value if actual names and
organizational affiliations were listed, but the community has
(for plausible reasons, IMO) decided to not do that.

This is just a personal opinion/request, but I would really
appreciate it if you (or others making procedural
suggestions/requests like this) would carefully think through
the implications of what they are asking for and how the
information would be used before making the request.  It would
be even better if you then included an explanation of the value
that you think would occur, and maybe the tradeoffs you see,
with the request, not just "is it possible that we follow a
procedure...".  

That would have an advantage for you too because such
suggestions are more likely to be taken seriously by more people
in the IETF rather than, in the extreme case, going unread
because you have developed a history of bad and/or unjustified
ideas.

regards,
   john

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:12:26 +0200

Hi John,

Thanks for your advise and comments. I prefered that consensus is
documented to know its value/level as was it 60% or 70% or 80%...etc.
How do Chairs in IETF decide on the agree/disagree/no-reply from WGs

 " Note that 51% of the working group does not qualify as "rough consensus" and
   99% is better than rough.  It is up to the Chair to determine if rough
  consensus has been reached."

I see that minutes just mention WG agreed to ..., but would suggest
the value, so it does not become below 51%. Also, most participants
need more time to decide on such request from Chairs because they use
their variable-available-volunteering time to do reading/work within
each 28 days.

Regards
AB
---

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 11:33:04 +0300

Just on a practical matter, many of us WG chairs like to get the
minutes uploaded as quickly as possible, before the blue sheet numbers
are available. Like John, I fail to see the value of recording the
number of people sitting in chairs, except to size the room for the
next meeting. One of the most productive WGs I ever participated in
usually had fewer than 10 people at a meeting, but every single one of
those people contributed to the documents.

Regarding consensus, that's a different matter altogether, and one you
didn't mention in your original email. In most WGs (certainly in
mine), consensus is not determined in the meeting, but on the list. In
the minutes, we'll sometimes report on the "sense of the room", but
it's nothing more than that.

Cheers,
Andy

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:44:36 +0200

AB,

I think what Andy says is that "percentage" nothing to do with rough
consensus. Rough consensus has everything to do with finding ways
forward that the entire wg can live with. Sometimes people find
themselves "in the rough", we don't fully agree with what working group
chairs says is the wg (rough) consensus. Toe "be in the rough" It is a
critical skill that IETFers need to acquire. I can assure you that
being a wg chair and in the rough, when you call wg consensus is not
easy - but again it has nothing to do with percentage.

/Loa

-- 

Loa Andersson                         email: [email-masked]
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            [email-masked]
Ericsson Inc                          phone: +46 10 717 52 13
                                              +46 767 72 92 13

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:14:18 -0400

> documented to know its value/level as was it 60% or 70% or 80%...etc.

That's impossible to answer.  We don't do voting.

> How do Chairs in IETF decide on the agree/disagree/no-reply from WGs

We use our judgement.  That's why we are paid so well by the IETF.

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 07:51:00 -0700

>documented to know its value/level as was it 60% or 70% or 80%...etc.

There isn't any percentage for consensus.

>How do Chairs in IETF decide on the agree/disagree/no-reply from WGs

[snip]

>I see that minutes just mention WG agreed to ..., but would suggest

"agreed" does not necessarily means a significant 
decision.  Decisions are taken on the mailing list anyway.

>their variable-available-volunteering time to do reading/work within

It is generally the wrong question if participants have to think 
really hard about the answer.  The decision is not written in stone anyway.

You asked an interesting question.  However, your previous message 
was framed in such a way that most people would ignore it.

You want people to agree or disagree.  A "no reply" generally 
translates into lack of interest or not enough information to take a 
decision.  You also want to be sure that participants fully 
understand what they are agreeing or disagreeing to.  There is a 
responsible Area Director in the room to perform a sanity check.

Regards,
-sm