[cabf_validation] Minutes of 11 April 2019

[Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA)]

On 12/4/2019 6:19 μ.μ., Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 1:06 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) via 
> Validation <validation at cabforum.org <mailto:validation at cabforum.org>> 
> wrote:
>
>
>     I have some concerns about the accuracy of the minutes posted,
>     please check in-line.
>
>     I must admit that capturing some word-for-word expressions like
>     "they can do whatever they want", "CABF can do what it likes" in
>     the minutes, leaves me a somewhat negative impression. It changes
>     the process from "taking minutes", to "transcribing" what was
>     actually said, which serves a different purpose. The purpose of
>     minutes, at least as I understand it, is to convey the
>     concepts/argument and a summary of what was discussed along with
>     any meaningful results out of these discussions. We expect to see
>     some dialogues that provide context, especially when it's
>     important to document which member supported which argument.
>     However, the minutes should mainly try to capture the
>     concepts/arguments and rarely the exact words/expressions used,
>     especially when these words/expressions don't add anything
>     meaningful to the concept/argument.
>
>
> For the record, we've discussed this in the past, and this has not 
> been the supported interpretation.
>
> The purpose of minutes is to maintain adequate protection from IP 
> risks, and thus the description, particularly of positions that may 
> convey IP risks, is important to carry within the minutes. The best 
> defense of this is, in fact, an exact transcription. An omission of a 
> suggestion which later becomes incorporated into a Guideline thus 
> carries IP risk, as it does not trigger itself as a Contribution.
>
> As such, for the extent that we continue to have phone calls, versus 
> conduct ourselves on the list, and to the benefit of the public who 
> cannot participate in such calls, we are best served by accurate, 
> transcriptive minutes. As we've discussed in the past.

When a member proposes something, this could be captured in the minutes 
as "member X suggested this improvement to this method". In terms of IPR 
protection, it's the same as writing "Dimitris: Why don't we do this 
improvement to this ridiculous method"?

We never reached a decision to actually "transcribe" the phone calls. At 
least, I can't recall such a decision. The minute takers must try to 
balance mainly two things; capture the member's Contributions (keeping 
in mind the IPR Policy) and the key points/summary of what was discussed 
during the calls/meetings, so that people that did not attend the 
meeting can understand what we discussed. I will try to capture these 
elements at some point and discuss further in the Forum on a separate 
thread.


Dimitris.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20190412/8ea7e8d8/attachment.html>