[02:22:43] --- ignas has joined
[03:52:56] --- Melinda has joined
[04:14:26] --- amalis has joined
[04:14:28] --- JoelMHalpern has joined
[04:14:43] --- hartmans has joined
[04:25:14] --- resnick has joined
[04:26:09] --- paf has joined
[04:26:54] --- leslie has joined
[04:27:21] --- dcrocker has joined
[04:27:40] --- memo56 has joined
[04:28:13] --- alexeymelnikov has joined
[04:31:04] --- kdz has joined
[04:33:01] <alexeymelnikov> Harald: try to understand where we want to be?
[04:33:49] <alexeymelnikov> what is important: person oriented, open process, wide review, quality results
[04:34:20] <alexeymelnikov> Harald: where are we today?
[04:34:32] --- Bill has joined
[04:35:07] <alexeymelnikov> takes too much time to get things done, occasional political issues
[04:36:11] <alexeymelnikov> IETF is committed to improving: keep an open consensus process, make the process to work as fast as requered, etc.
[04:36:27] <alexeymelnikov> Step in progress: OCAR
[04:36:48] <alexeymelnikov> Problems: the "late surprises" issues
[04:36:57] <dcrocker> "ocar"?
[04:37:10] <Bill> ICAR
[04:37:18] <alexeymelnikov> Potential solutions: early review, review often, running code
[04:37:40] --- amarine has joined
[04:38:14] <alexeymelnikov> Step in Progress: NEWTRK
[04:38:28] --- tomphelan has joined
[04:39:00] <alexeymelnikov> The Standard Track doesn't make sense some time. Lack of energy to move to DS, etc.
[04:39:09] --- tonyhansen has joined
[04:39:15] --- mattz has joined
[04:39:29] <alexeymelnikov> Step in progress: PROTO
[04:40:13] <alexeymelnikov> IETF process is not optimal: too many documents too watch, too many working groups. Need more hands and thoughts
[04:40:20] <hartmans> One point hta made that seems fairly important is that the new track group will work on a model of discuss first and get things right; ICAR needs to try things quickly to avoid more damage.
[04:40:42] <alexeymelnikov> WG chairs should be more involved
[04:41:07] <alexeymelnikov> Trying to understand the best WG process
[04:41:15] --- falk has joined
[04:41:15] --- falk has left
[04:41:33] <alexeymelnikov> Difficulty with finding consensus, fighting with disruptions, etc.
[04:41:44] <alexeymelnikov> New tools to help
[04:41:58] <alexeymelnikov> Issue tracking, WG web pages, Good minutes
[04:42:20] <alexeymelnikov> EDU team tries to share experience with new members
[04:42:51] <alexeymelnikov> We should be careful about modifying WG process, as it is the heart of IETF
[04:43:26] <alexeymelnikov> Additional proposals: mailing list management
[04:44:35] <alexeymelnikov> Have a look at how IESG operates: PROTO work may changes some roles of IESG; ICAR will help building support structures
[04:45:24] <alexeymelnikov> Summary: more work is required and more input. It is difficult to move quickly, but don't break what already works well
[04:45:56] <alexeymelnikov> Harald is asking for questions:
[04:46:25] <alexeymelnikov> Bob ...: I think you understate how broken the process is
[04:46:53] <alexeymelnikov> "slow" is too politically correct term
[04:47:47] <alexeymelnikov> discussion how slow is slow
[04:48:51] --- falk has joined
[04:48:55] --- memo56 has left: Disconnected
[04:48:57] <alexeymelnikov> Don't try to make the process perfect
[04:49:27] <alexeymelnikov> Need to get implementation as soon as possible
[04:49:32] --- randy_g has joined
[04:50:17] <alexeymelnikov> Pekka Savola: Disagreeing with Bob
[04:50:36] <alexeymelnikov> The main problem is how to get the consensus quickly
[04:52:02] <alexeymelnikov> Larry Masinter: There are many other organizations doing standardization, coordination is not done very well
[04:52:41] <alexeymelnikov> Harald is asking Leslie to comment on liasons
[04:53:23] <alexeymelnikov> Leslie: what we mean by establishing a relationship with other organizations, what we try to achieve
[04:54:09] <alexeymelnikov> Larry: Work done in other organizations may harm IETF
[04:54:25] <alexeymelnikov> Report from EDU team
[04:54:59] <alexeymelnikov> EDU: managing internal education regarding roles and process
[04:55:52] <alexeymelnikov> (presentation by Margaret Wasserman)
[04:56:28] <alexeymelnikov> Updated and enhanced Newscomer's Training, the first training in Korean
[04:57:02] <alexeymelnikov> WG Chair Training: IPR, Mailing List tracking, Issues Tracking
[04:57:26] <alexeymelnikov> Updated Security Tutorial; new Editors training.
[04:57:46] <alexeymelnikov> EDU WG is proud of their first year accomplishments
[04:58:33] <alexeymelnikov> Future plans: improve web resources for self-training, review roles/IESG role changes, BOF is San Diego
[04:58:36] <hartmans> One point hta made that seems fairly important is that the new track group will work on a model of discuss first and get things right; ICAR needs to try things quickly to avoid more damage.
[04:59:28] <alexeymelnikov> Dave Myer: existing education is not exactly mentorship
[05:00:23] <alexeymelnikov> For example, how to raise new IESG leaders
[05:01:37] <alexeymelnikov> Harald: traditional IESG training is "sink and swim"
[05:02:18] <alexeymelnikov> Thomas Narten presents about MPOWR
[05:02:37] <alexeymelnikov> Charter was produced, 3 items
[05:02:57] <alexeymelnikov> 1) better document roles of IESG, Chairs, Document Editors, etc
[05:02:59] --- memo56 has joined
[05:03:15] <alexeymelnikov> [sorry missed 2 and 3]
[05:03:31] <alexeymelnikov> Problems: not enough feedback
[05:03:43] <alexeymelnikov> Is there enough work for a WG?
[05:04:20] <alexeymelnikov> Also not clear what additional responsibilities should be moved to WG Chairs.
[05:05:34] --- tomphelan has left: Replaced by new connection.
[05:05:49] <alexeymelnikov> John Klensin: IESG has to make about priorities (IESG has more than 10 years of experience)
[05:05:57] --- tomphelan has joined
[05:06:18] <alexeymelnikov> Harald: IESG can't change process without community review
[05:07:08] --- falk has left: Replaced by new connection
[05:07:21] --- falk has joined
[05:08:06] <alexeymelnikov> Pekka Savola: give WG chairs other responsibilities other than mailing list posting blocking, document blocking
[05:08:12] --- amalis has left
[05:08:51] --- tonyhansen has left: Disconnected
[05:11:08] <alexeymelnikov> Steve ...: some problems are just fixed, but some persist for long time. Try to find out who benefits from not solving the problems
[05:12:37] <alexeymelnikov> Margaret:no community support for giving WG Chairs power to block documents
[05:12:52] --- tonyhansen has joined
[05:13:35] --- resnick has left: Disconnected
[05:13:38] <alexeymelnikov> Somebody: concern that empowering WG we will create 100 more IESG members, this might actually be a bad idea
[05:14:30] --- resnick has joined
[05:15:57] <alexeymelnikov> New presentation: Margaret - mailing list procedure changes
[05:16:30] <alexeymelnikov> draft-wasserman-rfc2418-ml-update
[05:17:53] <alexeymelnikov> Allow WG Chair to suspend posting privileges without IESG approval (this still needs consultation with AD)
[05:18:28] <alexeymelnikov> A question if 30 days suspension can be used to suspend forever
[05:19:08] <alexeymelnikov> What if AD is not available for consultation: the intent was to encourage consultation, but it is not required
[05:19:37] <memo56> Are the presentations available somewhere on the net?
[05:20:11] <alexeymelnikov> Larry Masinter: no process can substitute responsibilities
[05:21:13] <alexeymelnikov> word the document in term of responsibilites, not in terms of "how many days to use for suspension"
[05:22:32] <alexeymelnikov> Somebody: This document can be used for policing, no worth spending much effort
[05:23:23] <alexeymelnikov> Spencer Dawkins: this might not be a big issue, but let this draft go forward
[05:24:00] --- tonyhansen has left: Disconnected
[05:24:47] --- dcrocker has left
[05:25:08] <alexeymelnikov> Erin Falk: I like the existing trust, this document starts to fill spaces.
[05:25:32] <alexeymelnikov> ... which might not be desirable
[05:26:00] <leslie> s/Erin/Aaron/ (Falk)
[05:27:02] <alexeymelnikov> [sorry, my spelling is probably wrong in 90% of all cases]
[05:27:32] <alexeymelnikov> John Klensin is doing presentation on "procedure to change procedures"
[05:28:14] --- hta has joined
[05:28:16] <alexeymelnikov> John assumes that everybody has read his drafts
[05:29:29] <hta> 35 to 1 in people who have opinions on the mailing list suspension thing - in favour of pursuing it.
[05:29:41] --- dcrocker has joined
[05:30:04] <alexeymelnikov> Process should be for the sake of process: we don't want to waste time on charter discussion, etc.
[05:31:11] <alexeymelnikov> John: acknowledge that IESG was doing something for some time: if IESG doesn't like the process, it either ignores it or changes it.
[05:32:12] <alexeymelnikov> Also, if writing the rule down takes too much time, the rule is never recorded (documented)
[05:32:55] <alexeymelnikov> Occasionally IESG says that somebody has violated a rule, but it was never recorded in the first place. This should probably change
[05:33:27] --- tonyhansen has joined
[05:33:30] <alexeymelnikov> No need to create a WG for every piece of work, it takes non trivial resources
[05:34:38] <alexeymelnikov> The draft adds IESG new tools to get their work done
[05:36:09] <alexeymelnikov> Spending 6-9 months in order to figure out if something has to be done is bad.
[05:36:28] <alexeymelnikov> This requires a scary thing: trust the IESG ;-)
[05:38:05] <alexeymelnikov> Steve ...: people should try to bring experience from process in other organizations
[05:38:47] --- leifj has joined
[05:39:43] --- falk has left
[05:40:12] <alexeymelnikov> John Klensin: agree.
[05:41:07] <alexeymelnikov> John: it is also important to recognize which processes are good and which are bad
[05:42:45] <alexeymelnikov> Sam Hartman: disagress: spending more time on technical work and deciding that some things are bad idea (saying "no") is good.
[05:43:50] <alexeymelnikov> Sam: The proposal is only useful if the IESG believes in this proposal.
[05:44:03] <alexeymelnikov> John: IESG is in consensus
[05:44:36] <hta> correction: John says that it's only useful if the IESG thinks it's useful.
[05:45:56] --- tomphelan has left: Disconnected.
[05:47:30] <alexeymelnikov> Leslie: a claim that chartering takes too much time might not be true
[05:47:50] <hartmans> But I don't think giving the IESG the clear mandate is a reasonable course of action. If they want to do this, giving them the power is fine. But the initial interest needs to come at least in part from the IESG
[05:47:51] <alexeymelnikov> John: chartering is just an example, not the only example
[05:48:17] --- memo56 has left: Disconnected
[05:48:17] --- amarine has left
[05:49:17] <alexeymelnikov> Margaret: experiment is a great, but not the only tool (and writing an experimental RFC is already the current practice)
[05:53:00] <alexeymelnikov> Pekka: concern that trying something without soliciting community review first might be harmful
[05:53:52] <alexeymelnikov> There seems to be a consensus of the meeting that allowing IESG to experiment is a good tool
[05:54:29] <alexeymelnikov> Avri Doria does a presentation (See section 10 of draft-iesg-hardie-outline-01.txt)
[05:55:08] <alexeymelnikov> Not all complaint require an appeal, a better communication will do
[05:57:34] <alexeymelnikov> description how the Ombudsperson is selected by nomcom, responsibilities (review public records to see if there is a process violation)
[05:57:53] <alexeymelnikov> limitation: no power of investigation
[05:58:16] <alexeymelnikov> Scope: mediator, arbitrer or adjudicator
[05:58:51] <alexeymelnikov> Can the same person server more than once? (concern that the person will become part of the process)
[06:00:10] <alexeymelnikov> Somebody: this position will require a very special skills
[06:01:06] <alexeymelnikov> Should this person be hired, instead of being a volunteer?
[06:02:47] <alexeymelnikov> Sam Hartmans: how much the Ombudsperson should talk to previous nomcom?
[06:03:19] <hartmans> next nomcom actually--talking about for example who on the IESG tends not to respond to iissues.
[06:03:49] <alexeymelnikov> Steve ...: suggestion for Ombudsperson to train his/her successor
[06:04:47] --- memo56 has joined
[06:05:36] <alexeymelnikov> Margaret: don't like the idea
[06:06:00] <alexeymelnikov> "causing more process"
[06:07:58] <alexeymelnikov> Larry Masinter: downside - when there is a communication problem between two parties, putting another person in the middle is just making the communication even more difficult
[06:08:08] <Melinda> Has anybody looked at the ombudscritter models used by the major newspapers? It's not like what's being discussed
[06:08:55] <hartmans> How is it different? I'm familiar with that and was sort of reading parts of that model into this.
[06:09:49] <Melinda> The ombudsmen with the NY Times and WP don't negotiate or facilitate. They take in the complaint, evaluate the information that's available to them, and publish a summary and opinion
[06:10:17] <hartmans> Are you sure they don't do things behind the scenes in terms of facilitating?
[06:11:00] <hartmans> I had always sort of assumed they did.
[06:11:02] <Melinda> They talk to reporters and the paper may respond to the report, but there's really no negotiation. I like that model
[06:12:16] <Melinda> Here's one example (registration required, sorry): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15599-2004Feb28.html
[06:13:03] <paf> As a Swedish-speaking-person I can explain that ombudsman is definitely not a negotiator.
[06:13:29] <paf> An ombudsman is one which acts on behalf of the one complaining and is definitely on one side of the discussion.
[06:13:43] <alexeymelnikov> Margaret is doing a presentation on PROTO team
[06:14:07] <paf> They will of course say when the complaint is not valid (and because of that also help the one which people complain at), but...
[06:14:48] <hartmans> O, I sort of assumed people meant negotaiation with the people being complained to. "Hey. That one word response to Sam wasn't so useful. Would you mind being more clear?"
[06:15:55] <alexeymelnikov> PROTO team objective - help AD to move the document through the last stages of document approval
[06:15:58] <Melinda> It sounds like there's not agreement on what the proposal actually is. Kind of hard to come to agreement in that case
[06:16:49] <paf> Correct, but when doing so they still is there to help the one complaining. Also, they can combine N weak complaints and say "enough is enough, we have had N complaints now" etc. In Sweden, they have a *very* strong position. For example the one called "Konsumentombudsmannen" (the consumer ombudsman) which complains on things in Sweden about every week.
[06:16:58] <alexeymelnikov> description of the current process follows
[06:17:06] <dcrocker> the function being proposed for the ietf has a very different task to perform than a newspaper ombudsman, so it probably will not help to compare the proposal to newspapers' history
[06:17:16] --- memo56 has left
[06:18:06] <paf> See http://konsumentverket.se/mallar/en/startsidan.asp?lngCategoryId=646
[06:18:16] <Melinda> I'm not sure I agree with that, actually. In both cases you've got someone saying "you made a mistake and it caused damage <x> and I'd like to see it corrected"
[06:18:39] <dcrocker> we should not be distracted by the term. the task of this person appears to be to facilitate and maybe even mentor someone who has a complaint. this appears to involve education/research, process instruction, and maybe some inter-mediation between the complainant and other foolks.
[06:18:53] <Melinda> Why does it have to?
[06:19:03] <hartmans> David, there seems to be disagreement over that.
[06:19:37] <Melinda> That is to say, that seems to have been what was discussed in the room, but it's not the only option and it's almost certainly not the best option
[06:19:55] <paf> *I* personally think an ombudsman according to my/the swedish definition is exactly what we might want?
[06:20:06] <alexeymelnikov> Aaron Falk is talking about "WG Chair Document Write-Ups"
[06:20:11] <paf> Anyway...
[06:20:23] <dcrocker> about disagreement on tasks: i was offering my own sense of the proposal. at a minimum we need to agree on what the person's tasks are. it's fine to draw from an existing job elsewhere in the world, but fine also to invent a new one.
[06:20:38] <paf> of course. sorry for distracting.
[06:20:43] <hartmans> paf - I'm not sure; I'm seen organizations with ombudsman twith your definition and it creates a lot of friction.
[06:22:00] <dcrocker> melinda - the reason the ietf person's mediation job is so different from a newspaper's is that the nature of who the participants are and their relationships are all completely different. Also, as was noted earlier, a newspaper ombudsperson makes a formal, public assessment -- they "decide". That's not the job of the ietf person, as I understand the proposal.
[06:22:34] <hartmans> They do not decide; they give their opinion. The newspaper may disagree with them
[06:23:02] <paf> It is good if it is not needed, but just because I am on IAB and therefore listen a lot to what the community says/complaints about, and then the word "ombudsman" was used *AND* I have this definition myself......I thought maybe situation was such that it was needed. I am happy if I am wrong.
[06:23:16] <Melinda> They don't decide, Dave.
[06:23:47] <dcrocker> as i understand the current proposal, this person does not even do that. they might privately offer an opinion to the complainant, but they don't offer a public one. hence, this person really is a kind of facilitator. perhaps we will get better mileage out of a different label.
[06:25:35] <Melinda> I'm not concerned about the label as much as I am the function. Perhaps it might be worthwhile to put together a proposal describing a less mediational model.
[06:26:22] <dcrocker> for reference, i'm trying to represent the proposal as I understand it, rather than state my preference. also for reference, i think a 'facilitator' role is a very good idea. in effect, the person can help a complainant pursue their concerns with more knowledge and, possibly, more constructive style, than they otherwise would. personally i think having this faciltator offer a public opinion is counterproductive because it then starts being a formal part of the outcome aspect of the appeals process.
[06:26:34] <alexeymelnikov> "Shepherding AD Review Comments"
[06:28:30] <alexeymelnikov> "Shepherding Discuss Comments"
[06:28:53] <dcrocker> as for mediation, between the complainants and the folks they are complaining about is based on the assumption that the direct communication among these folks has broken down. the facilitator therefore tries to find ways to have constructive exchanges. there are no guarantees, of course, but the third-party role can be very helpful and moving beyond the shouting and quickly resolve whether there is any way to resolve the matter directly.
[06:28:59] <kdz> I not keen on adding an aribitrator/faciliator/mediator position to our structure. But maybe we need to have mentors who can help other IETF participants learn how to address contention.
[06:29:24] <dcrocker> yes
[06:32:42] --- falk has joined
[06:33:02] <alexeymelnikov> Larry Masinter: there is alread process automation software
[06:33:27] --- falk has left
[06:34:38] <alexeymelnikov> Harold asking the meeting if the pilots make sense
[06:36:00] <alexeymelnikov> Most people thing that the pilots are a good idea, but some changes to the proposed processes might be required.
[06:37:58] <alexeymelnikov> Pekka Savola: my two favorite problems were not discussed
[06:38:41] --- Melinda has left: Disconnected
[06:39:37] <alexeymelnikov> inability to close an issue; inability of an editor to edit an issue
[06:41:08] <alexeymelnikov> Sam: should use IETF process when consensus based solution works well
[06:41:14] --- dcrocker has left: Disconnected
[06:41:47] --- Melinda has joined
[06:42:56] <alexeymelnikov> Thomas Narten: question to Pekka whether issue tracking is used to solve his problems
[06:47:53] --- JoelMHalpern has left
[06:48:53] <Melinda> I'd really like to see us improve our consensus skills
[06:51:21] --- hartmans has left
[06:51:37] <alexeymelnikov> end of the meeting
[06:51:42] --- alexeymelnikov has left
[06:52:09] --- resnick has left: Disconnected
[06:52:19] --- paf has left: Disconnected
[06:53:32] --- leslie has left
[06:55:37] --- Melinda has left
[06:55:57] --- tonyhansen has left
[06:56:08] --- mattz has left
[06:59:14] --- hta has left: Disconnected
[06:59:31] --- Bill has left
[07:00:07] --- randy_g has left: Disconnected
[07:11:08] --- kdz has left: Disconnected
[07:11:22] --- hta has joined
[07:12:02] --- hta has left
[07:13:04] --- leifj has left
[08:10:21] --- kdz has joined
[08:51:38] --- kdz has left: Disconnected
[13:56:53] --- ignas has left: Replaced by new connection
[14:21:09] --- ignas has joined
[15:21:18] --- LOGGING STARTED
[15:50:41] --- paf has joined
[15:51:35] --- paf has left
[16:03:25] --- randy_g has joined
[17:51:48] --- randy_g has left: Disconnected
[18:08:53] --- randy_g has joined
[18:09:09] --- randy_g has left
[18:35:38] --- ignas has joined
[20:02:38] --- ignas has left: Disconnected
[20:07:19] --- swb has joined
[20:07:22] --- swb has left