[Infrastructure] Issues with Minutes

[Ben Wilson]

For one or two of the F2F minutes in the past, we used an explanation at
the beginning - something like, "inconsistencies are due to the fact that
the minutes have been prepared by many people who volunteered as note
takers, etc."

On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 10:25 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
dzacharo at harica.gr> wrote:

>
>
> On 2019-12-16 6:09 μ.μ., Jos Purvis (jopurvis) wrote:
>
> Having now published the minutes from a bunch of meetings plus the last
> couple face-to-face minutes, I’m struggling a bit. The minutes from the
> last F2F in particular have a number of rather…interesting textual
> approaches, shall we say (indifferent or missing capitalization, typos,
> curious formatting, etc.), and it’s a real struggle to publish those as
> approved because they’re difficult to read and follow, in addition to not
> being the best representation of the Forum overall.
>
>
>
> I hesitate to say anything because I know we have a number of members for
> whom English is not a first language (although many of those do not take
> minutes, it seems like), and I know even for people that do have English as
> a first language some of this stuff can be a struggle. I don’t mind
> correcting obvious typos as we go, but the F2F minutes are enormous (very
> time-consuming to reformat and edit), and I get very nervous about removing
> editorial comments or re-rendering sentences when publishing things,
> because I don’t ever want to modify the meaning of something away from what
> was formally approved. Would it be too much to request that minute-takers
> take a minute to review and clean up minutes when uploading? Not sure how
> to bring this up with the Forum.
>
>
> Hi Jos,
>
> There are several members that try to improve the quality of the minutes,
> both in quantity and quality :-) We had a long review period for the
> approval of the F2F minutes. My expectation is that anyone can edit the
> minutes when they are in the review process, especially if the edits are to
> improve language (grammar, syntax, etc). Contributions from native English
> speakers in this area is greatly appreciated!
>
> Now that the minutes are approved I don't think we can go back and correct
> them. I would only go through an update process if what is currently
> written is not accurate or doesn't capture one's opinion correctly. IMO
> typos or grammatical changes are not a very strong reasons to go through
> this process.
>
> Thanks,
> Dimitris.
> _______________________________________________
> Infrastructure mailing list
> Infrastructure at cabforum.org
> http://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20191216/6263650b/attachment.html>