IT Knowledge Base : Minutes Guidelines

Purpose of the minutes

 The role of the minutes is to record:

  • the participants in the meeting
  • current status actions, and new actions
  • the documents presented to the group
  • a summary of the discussion that took place on each document
  • the disposition of each document & next steps at the end of the meeting.
  • other agreements of the participants, e.g. WISPR updates
  • next meetings

1. Attendees

The minute taker can use the meeting attendee list from the portal as source information, although if the chair confirms the actual attendees in the meeting (e.g. roll call) then this information should be captured in the minutes.

2. Actions

The minutes should record action items agreed to be closed at the meeting, progress on outstanding actions, and new actions agreed in the meeting.

3.  Input Document discussion

For each document under discussion, the minutes should record the following:

(a) Document details:

-          Document title, number, and presenting company name.

(b) Concerns on the proposal

-          capture a summary of issues raised, which may need to be addressed prior to agreement.  See section 3.2 for guidelines on the level of detail expected in capturing the issues 

(c) Proposed changes: 

-          capture a summary of the changes proposed by meeting members which could be considered by the submitters in a follow up proposal.

-          The recommendations may be at a high level, e.g. areas proposed to be addressed in a future revision or they may be specific text modifications; whichever is most appropriate to give guidance to the submitters.

(d) Objections

-          if a company objects to a proposal, then this should be recorded along with the company name and a summary of the reason for objection. 

-          It should also be recorded whether the company subsequently agreed to withdrew their objection or whether they sustained their objection.

-          if a vote takes place on a document then the results of the vote shall be recorded in the minutes.

(e) Document disposition

-          For each document, the disposition should be recorded , e.g. Agreed, Noted

-          Guidance is provided in the minutes template, see comments on section ‘Document disposition’

(f) Next steps

-          any proposed next steps proposed by the meeting for the submitters of a document, e.g. socialisation with other groups, decision to move to R&A.

-          new actions should capture the lead company name for the action, as well as company names who agreed to contribute.

3.1  Contributions containing multiple proposals

If an input document contains multiple proposals (e.g. CRs to multiple sections of a permanent document), then the minutes should summarise the discussion on each of the proposals, e.g. agreements, if any, by group on parts of the proposals, which parts need revision before agreement.

3.2  Level of detail

It is not needed to capture every comment made by every company, along with the company name, made while discussing the proposal.  The minute taker should not be expected to capture any particular statement verbatim. 

If there is a detailed series of questions, and answers, and arguments and counter-arguments between delegates over a proposal, then the role of the minute taker is to briefly summarise the main points raised and conclusions coming out of the discussion.

Company names should be recorded however if there are objections, or as part of follow-up actions.

4. Other agreements

As well as input documents, the minutes can also record other agreements of the group, such as:

  • decision to establish, or close, an ad hoc group and the appointment of the convenor
  • changes to the WISPR schedule for a work item, including soft milestones and milestones requiring TP approval
  • agreed handling of incoming or outgoing liaisons, or the need to establish a liaison relationship.
  • Discussion on review comments, e.g. response from group.

5. IPR

Guidance on enquiries in relation to essential IPR for Technical Plenary meetings, and other OMA meetings, and the recording thereof in the minutes is given in themember IPR guidelines.

6. Approval of minutes

The minutes must be accurate to fulfil their purpose.    If an error is identified in any part of the minutes then this must be corrected promptly, ideally within a few days of the meeting.

7.  Examples

Some example minutes can be found here:

http://member.openmobilealliance.org/ftp/REL/ID/09/OMA-REL-2009-0094-MINUTES_15May2009_Process_CC.zip

The example below shows how a very detailed discussion can be summarised to briefly capture what was agreed, what needs to be re-worked, and what was agreed by group.

Example detailed discussion

Example summarised discussion

OMA-MWG-CPM-2009-0079R01-CR_TS_Conversation_parameters

Nadia from Ericsson introduced this contribution.

Comments:

Acision: Contribution ID is fine, we should not change anything.

NSN: Appendix is normally informative.

NSN: namespace for Message ID. New namespace?  Ericsson: yes.  Defined as part of the IMDN.  

NSN: Have no problems reusing parameters.

NSN: Change 2 (beginning): conversation Thread is undefined.

Ericsson: Contribution ID: important to say it is a globally unique ID.   NSN: not sure it needs to be unique, this is not a requirements, may end up unique as a side effect.  Ericsson: delete 1st sentence.

NSN: Change 2: does not talk about Message COM Header. Why?   Ericsson: SIP INVITE does not carry, MESSAGE message carries conversation ID.

NSN: Appendix C: Need to rephrase heading.   Ericsson. OK “Parameters for conversation & contribution identification”.

Ericsson, Acision: C.1.3: remove “SHALL always”.

NSN, Acision, Ericsson: advantage of going to IETF asking them to define CPM tags/parameters. IETF will need time write the draft & then the RFC.

NSN: I don’t push to go through the IETF way, I just suggest it as an idea.

Ericsson: Kyung Tak did online edit, 0079R02 can be put in R&A.

Chair:  will upload R02 (online editing done during 0079R01 discussion), and wait until Helsinki to consider alienate proposals.  R02 postponed until Helsinki.

OMA-MWG-CPM-2009-0079R01-CR_TS_Conversation_parameters

Nadia from Ericsson introduced this contribution.

Comments:

Change 1: no comments, proposal agreed.

Change 2:  agreed ‘conversation thread’ needs to be defined.    Contribution identity: agreed no need for this to be globally unique, submitters will delete 1st  sentence.

Change 3: agreed to rephrase heading to ‘Parameters for conversation & contribution identification’;  C.1.3 agree to remove ‘SHALL always’.   Group discussed possibility of asking IETF to define CPM tags/parameters, but concluded that this would take too much time to write the draft, then RFC.

Conclusion: Ericsson will upload R02, and wait until Helsinki to consider alternative proposals.  R02 postponed until ...