Hi Mark,
The minutes aren’t the only record of what happened in the meeting: the presentations themselves are on the same web page as the minutes, and they are kept forever. Any reader is free to look at the presentations
for any topic in which they are interested.
I agree that you want to capture interesting points of discussion, in particular, important questions that were asked and any clarification that one might miss just by reading the presentation.
But I think you want to be hugely careful about re-stating anything in the minutes that actually is included in the presentation.
A claim made in a presentation sounds like a statement of fact if you put the identical sentence in the minutes.
A proposal made in a presentation sounds like an agreement if you put the identical sentence in the minutes.
You are also exposed to the biases of your minute-taker, which are good to avoid. If your minute-taker agrees with a claim made in a presentation, so re-states that claim in the minutes, then you have promoted
the claim to something that sounds like a statement of fact, even though you have no idea whether the room as a whole agrees with the claim unless you test it later with a straw poll or motion.
Regards,
Steve
From: Mark Nowell (mnowell) <mnowell@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, September 6, 2019 10:38 AM
To: Trowbridge, Steve (Nokia - US) <steve.trowbridge@xxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100G-OPTX] P802.3cu Task Force minutes posted
Peter,
Thank you once again for your thorough review.
I was hoping that my updated draft minutes would satisfy your comments from your last review. Apologies to Guangcan, I thought I’d corrected that.
Everyone can put their cameras away!!
With respect to the motion language, there is a typo in the minutes. Typically it is a cut/paste from the actual doc that the motions were taken in into the minutes doc. Not sure how an elusive
“to” disappeared but Ken checked with the other doc and we’ve now corrected it in the minutes. It now reads: “Move to modify
to the following nomenclature:”. I agree it could have been better worded in hindsight but I don’t think there was any ambiguity in the TF at the time on what was being discussed and decided.
As I explained before to you, my usual goal is to write some brief descriptions on the presentations in order that those not in attendance got some insight into what was presented. It seems that
there are a few more bullet points under presentation #5, presumably because when Ken or I were putting the minutes together the intention was to flesh out some more on this new technical concept that had been introduced to the Task Force.
See you next week.
Mark
From: Steve Trowbridge <steve.trowbridge@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Steve Trowbridge <steve.trowbridge@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 6:46 PM
To: 100G OPTX <STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [802.3_100G-OPTX] P802.3cu Task Force minutes posted
Hi Peter & Jeff,
I also don’t have a screen shot (which would be against the rules), but looking at my notes from the meeting, what I wrote was:
“Motion #5: Move to modify
to the following nomenclature:”
I can’t tell you for sure whether my transcription was accurate, or whether this is something my fingers fixed as I was typing it because the words on the screen didn’t make sense to my brain.
Regards,
Steve
From: Jeffery Maki <00000d5963b8071f-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 3:54 PM
To: STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100G-OPTX] P802.3cu Task Force minutes posted
Peter,
The task force had previously “adopted” by motion nomenclature. We then had a contribution at a subsequent meeting questioning the earlier decision of the task force that prompted the task force
to “modify” by motion its nomenclature. The meeting minutes are thus not inconsistent with the chain of events. I also do not have a photograph of the screen though.
Jeff
From: Brian Welch (bpwelch) <00000e3f3facf699-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 1:35 PM
To: STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100G-OPTX] P802.3cu Task Force minutes posted
Mark, Ken,
Since presentation #5 is mine, I thought I would comment that the minutes relating to that presentation look correct to me (as currently posted ) and I would not suggest making any revisions to
them.
Thanks,
Brian
From: Peter Stassar <Peter.Stassar@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 8:26 AM
To: STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_100G-OPTX] P802.3cu Task Force minutes posted
Hi Mark, Ken,
I have looked at the updated unapproved meeting minutes of the P802.3cu meeting in Vienna.
I noted that you have taken account some of my comments sent to you and Kent off the reflector.
Before going into detail I would like to point a potential issue with respect to motion #6 as it is mentioned in the draft minutes:
The way it’s currently written doesn’t make sense, because it’s suggested that the new nomenclature is modified to ?
Unfortunately I wasn’t allowed to take a picture of the screen at the meeting, otherwise I would have been able to check what was shown on the screen.
I think that if it was as written in the report, we may need to take another motion to correct it by something that says “move to adopt ……”.
So that should be a topic on the agenda for next week’s meeting.
Then the report:
- My colleague’s name is still wrong: Last (family) name is Mi and first name is Guangcan (and not the other way around).
- Presentation # 1:
- It’s stated:
- “Presenter indicated that consistency between the other recent IEEE standards (P802.3ck 100GBASE-KR1) would be preferred.”
- P802.3ck is not yet a (recent) standard, so please modify to:
- “Presenter indicated that consistency with agreements in P802.3ck 100GBASE-KR1 would be preferred.”
- Presentation #5:
- I had indicated before that I feel that a bit too much detail has been given on the various presentations, where there is always the risk of being not sufficiently complete, however the
details provided on this presentation are a bit out of balance with the details on the other presentations.
- Therefore I propose the current bullets to be replaced by:
- Presented experimental results on a technology agnostic technique, using bottom eye compression in the transmitter, to mitigate dispersion penalty towards lower TDECQ.
- Presenter claimed that there was no impact to currently proposed IEEE transmitter specifications and measurement methodology.
Kind regards,
Peter Stassar
From: Mark Nowell (mnowell) [mailto:00000b59be7040a9-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, 17 July 2019 09:47
To: STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_100G-OPTX] P802.3cu Task Force minutes posted
Dear Colleagues,
The minutes from this week’s meeting have been prepared and posted here:
http://www.ieee802.org/3/cu/public/July19/minutes_3cu_0719_unapproved.pdf
Thanks to Ken Jackson for the excellent work pulling these together!
Regards, Mark
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX&A=1