Re: A proposed experiment in narrative minutes of IESG meetings

[Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com>]

Simon Josefsson wrote:
> "Marshall Eubanks" <tme at multicasttech.com> writes:
>
>
> > On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:08:45 +0200
> > Simon Josefsson <jas at extundo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com> writes:
> > >
> > >
> > > > We propose that, for an initial period of 6 months, a member of
> > > > the community will be added to regular IESG meetings as a "recording
> > > > secretary" who will write narrative minutes of the discussions,
> > > > which will be posted publicly after IESG review for accuracy.
> > >
> > > Sounds useful to me.  How about actually recording the discussion too?
> > > And publishing them as OGG or MP3.  Editing out personnel discussion
> > > would still be possible.  All for the sake of transparency and
> > > accountability.
> >
> > My experience is that recordings tend to shut some people up.
>
>
> My experience is that recordings tend to make people focus on facts,
> rather than trying to win a discussion or furthering their own agenda.
> If the IESG meetings are intended as service to the community, from
> experts, that seem to be a good thing.
>
>
> > Plus, if they exist, they are subject to subpoena.
>
>
> Is that a problem?  Not purely a rhetorical question.

The two points are linked. The IESG gets to make some decisions about
people. "X is a lousy WG chair, but Y is the only plausible replacement,
and she works for Z so would have a commercial interest in the
outcome. So we have to put up with X." I think people wouldn't say that
on a call that was being recorded for posterity, precisely because it might
be sub poenaed.

Whereas the narrative minutes would say
"The IESG discussed the Foobar WG and agreed with the AD's proposal to
continue with the current WG chair."

    Brian


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf