Record meetings

Abierto
  • ¿Algo no está bien?
#1,197 10 comentarios 3 reacciones 0 asignados Ver en GitHub

Nadie ha tomado este issue todavía.

Evaluación

Dificultad
5/5
Tiempo estimado
Más de una semana
Aptitud para principiantes
35/100
Tipo de issue
Nueva funcionalidad
Claridad
Bastante claro
Estado de actividad
Activo
Stack tecnológico
html
Área
documentation

Línea de trabajo

Start by reading the linked W3C Process policy on meeting recording and the repository’s process document to locate the current consent rule. The issue proposes recording ordinary working group business, with defined exceptions and advance documentation, and raises support costs; the change would be done when the policy specifies those rules and addresses how recording is supported.

Escrito por el modelo de indexación a partir del texto del issue.

Descripción

Right now, the process effectively prohibits the recording of meetings. Recordings are only possible if every attendee consents to the recording.

This does the broader community that we serve a major disservice. We disempower those not present by presenting only a sanitized version of key discussions, through minutes. People at our meetings participate in the making of decisions that affect many people. A better accounting of the reasoning behind those decisions is something we owe the people affected by them. No doubt, few will watch or listen to a recording, but the possibility that they could is how we remain accountable to those people.

The IETF routinely records meetings and publishes those recordings to YouTube. This has not stymied their ability to function; on the contrary, those recordings are useful for those outside the meeting to understand how decisions were made. I've personally heard from journalists that they watched recordings to understand context.

For those present, recordings serve as a more reliable witness to decisions made in the past. Recordings are useful at recovering context that was not well documented or to verify claims about what was said.

Finally, and very much secondarily, recordings and transcripts will relieve participants from the onerous task of minuting duty. I find the quality of minutes taken in W3C meetings to be amazing, but the task is quite difficult and the necessary intensity of focus required has the effect of neutralizing my ability to participate effectively. I expect that many others feel the same way, but volunteer the service because someone has to and it is better to distribute that burden. With a recording, AI tools can produce minutes that are more accurate and complete than any human could.

I've heard lots of arguments in favour of this policy, which maximizes the comfort of attendees. If someone were to say something inappropriate (not so much in a code of conduct sense, but in the sense that it reveals commercially sensitive information), it then becomes easier to ask that not to enter the minutes. No doubt many people will strenuously object to the idea that we might change this long-standing policy.

Naturally, some bodies will need to be able to override this policy on occasion. The board especially often talks about topics that are not appropriate to broadcast. Councils meetings, where they occur, will touch on points of stakeholder conflict that could be sensitive and difficult if constrained by having to consider an audience.

The ordinary business of a working group should always be recorded. Groups that might need to hold confidential discussions should have to document the need in their charter and have that power explicitly authorized by the AC. Any session that is held off the record then needs to be documented in advance in the planning of the meeting, which shall include an accounting of what topics will be covered in the unrecorded session (or part of a session).

This also has a support cost. The organization would need to source tools to enable recording. That is not free. Those facilities are generally available through remote meeting facilities (i.e., Zoom, as currently used), so this should not be particularly challenging to achieve, but it's worth noting explicitly.

Lenguaje dominante
HTML
Estrellas
262
Forks
194
Sin PR fusionados en 30 d

Preparar el entorno

Primeros pasos

  1. Lee el issue completo y luego la guía de contribución del proyecto.
  2. Comenta en el issue que vas a ocuparte — evita que dos personas hagan lo mismo.
  3. Haz un fork del repositorio y trabaja en una rama.
  4. Abre un pull request que haga referencia al número del issue.

Más de w3c/process

Todos los issues de w3c/process

Issues similares

Más issues de Documentation

Recibe los nuevos issues en tu correo

Un resumen breve de issues de GitHub para principiantes.