I tend to agree with Pete - the minutes are more like an official record, as well. BTW, the IESG Charter (RFC 3710) says:
"The IESG publishes a record of decisions from its meetings on the Internet,..." In any case, apart from this detail, I think the draft is good to go. Brian On 06/09/2013 10:20, Pete Resnick wrote: > On 9/5/13 2:45 PM, Scott O Bradner wrote: >> looks good to me except that maybe using the IETF Announce list rather >> than >> IESG minutes as the publication of record >> > > The only reason I went with the IESG minutes is because they do state > the "pending" actions too, as well as the completed ones, which the IETF > Announce list does not. For instance, the IESG minutes say things like: > > "The document remains under discussion by the IESG in order to resolve > points raised by..." > > "The document was approved by the IESG pending an RFC Editor Note to be > prepared by..." > > "The document was deferred to the next teleconference by..." > > The minutes also of course reflect all of the approvals. So they do seem > to more completely replace what that paragraph as talking about. And we > have archives of IESG minutes back to 1991; we've only got IETF Announce > back to 2004. > > I'm not personally committed to going one way or the other. The minutes > just seemed to me the more complete record. > > pr >
