[sc34wg3] Draft Minutes from Baltimore: 6-9 December 2003

[Patrick Durusau]

Jim,

Mason, James David (MXM) wrote:

>I think we need to post them as a numbered document, but with a caveat that
>they are an individual contribution and not an official meeting report (i.e,
>Patrick is the author, and the status is "individual contribution"). The
>recommendations of the meeting are the official record of decisions taken.
>
I agree and would note that the "decisions" recorded in the minutes are 
denoted as "proposed resolution"s. Decisions can be made only by 
established ISO procedures and as Jim notes, those are reflected in the 
recommendations of the meeting.

I see the "minutes" (perhaps we need a better, i.e., less official 
sounding name for them) as having three roles:

1. By daily posting, even an unofficial report of the meetings gives 
those unable to attend some sense of the work of the group;

2. It serves to encourage the group since it can see the issues it has 
covered, giving a sense of progress and accomplishment;

3. It serves as a sort of institutional memory, even if it has no 
normative, informative or other standing in future discussions. WG3 
could easily decide to take a course different from that discussed at 
any particular meeting. If my notes serve merely to assist in recalling 
all the issues that are relevant to a particular decision, then they 
will have been worth the effort to take and prepare for posting.

Since I am not a professional stenographer (and am not looking for a 
second/third/forth career) I think Steve Pepper's point that my notes 
are not completely accurate is well taken. I think they fall somewhere 
between the notes of someone who did not attend the meeting and  a word 
by word transcription of everything spoken at the meeting. ;-)

Patrick

-- 
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
pdurusau@emory.edu