[08:53:47] --- spencerdawkins has joined
[08:59:11] --- Melinda has joined
[08:59:27] --- Jim Galvin has joined
[09:00:57] --- julian.reschke has joined
[09:01:21] --- nm has joined
[09:02:23] <spencerdawkins> some wrestling with projectors...
[09:04:48] <spencerdawkins> lucy lynch dancing ... in a darkened room ... very mood lighting ...
[09:05:12] <spencerdawkins> been a long week, not over yet...
[09:05:32] <spencerdawkins> agenda bashing?
[09:06:06] <spencerdawkins> supposed to be BOFish (invited speakers plus discussion and identification of constituency
[09:06:28] <spencerdawkins> open working group mode or design team mode is an (open?) question
[09:07:29] --- falk has joined
[09:07:31] --- FDupont has joined
[09:07:31] <spencerdawkins> John Leslie on IESG structure and charter
[09:07:32] --- doug_trend@jabber.org has joined
[09:07:39] --- rpelletier has joined
[09:07:58] --- elwynd has joined
[09:08:03] <spencerdawkins> other people are involved in this material...
[09:08:15] <spencerdawkins> but this is John's presentation
[09:08:52] <spencerdawkins> Current RFC 3710 was Informational, not BCP, Feb 2004
[09:09:04] --- bkhabs@jabber.org has joined
[09:09:40] <spencerdawkins> becoming long in tooth, have new IESG chair, have done posting rights and process experiments RFCs
[09:09:51] <spencerdawkins> also - IASA has been done
[09:10:19] --- lea.roberts has joined
[09:10:27] <spencerdawkins> *** can others jabber scribe when I'm at the mike? ***
[09:10:48] <spencerdawkins> Suggestions for 3710bis
[09:11:24] --- narten has joined
[09:11:38] <spencerdawkins> broader viewpoint, stable role, exclude procedures (63 procedure statements, IETF consensus, publish as BCP)
[09:12:25] <spencerdawkins> design team with open mailing list, with drafts published after IESG review, respond to clarity comments but not content, with procedures in some other document
[09:12:58] <spencerdawkins> design team - former IESG members, non-members, roughly equal balance, named and charged by current IESG chair
[09:13:46] <spencerdawkins> no current IESG members? Probably busy enough without being involved, but Brian is concerned about effect on moving this forward
[09:14:09] <spencerdawkins> anyone participating remotely?
[09:14:31] <Melinda> I'm listening, unlikely to contribute though.
[09:14:34] <spencerdawkins> we have running code that springing things on IESG is not a good plan
[09:14:59] <spencerdawkins> melinda - we're trying to figure out what mike to use - now we know! Thanks
[09:15:20] <Melinda> The audio isn't all that great, frankly - loud hum. It's still intelligible, though.
[09:15:36] <spencerdawkins> all slides on proceedings website
[09:15:45] --- leslie@ecotroph.net has joined
[09:15:58] <doug_trend@jabber.org> Proposed Deliverables
[09:16:02] <spencerdawkins> tasks that gate on IESG, IESG member time required
[09:16:15] --- lars has joined
[09:16:24] <spencerdawkins> must remain IESG, might be handled by IASA
[09:16:38] <spencerdawkins> updated charter on long-term role and composition
[09:17:31] --- falk has left
[09:18:08] --- falk@jabber.isi.edu has joined
[09:18:09] <spencerdawkins> Spencer - what about tasks that can be delegated?
[09:18:16] --- FDupont has left
[09:18:37] <spencerdawkins> Brian - authority should include delegation, but this should be written down
[09:19:10] <spencerdawkins> Margaret - encourage to delegate in general?
[09:19:49] <spencerdawkins> Margaret - open mailing list but draft will go to IESG before public sees this?
[09:19:54] <spencerdawkins> seems odd...
[09:20:09] <spencerdawkins> would probably have private mailing list as well
[09:20:37] <spencerdawkins> doesn't BCP have to be community consensus document?
[09:21:10] <spencerdawkins> can be helpful to have design team produce document, what happens after that doesn't have to involve the design team
[09:22:18] <spencerdawkins> Margaret - disagree with producing a document in a design team and then not revising
[09:22:49] <spencerdawkins> Scott - understand that IDs would be revised in normal fashion
[09:23:04] <spencerdawkins> John - agrees
[09:24:23] <spencerdawkins> Leslie - understand desire to take design team approach, but need to be clear about process for design team here (charter, appeals process, etc.)
[09:25:01] <spencerdawkins> if this is just "some people are going off, watch for IDs later", most of the details aren't needed
[09:25:10] <doug_trend@jabber.org> Design Team Composition
[09:25:40] <spencerdawkins> Margaret - current IESG members are probably busy, but shouldn't exclude groups - call for volunteers and see who shows up
[09:26:13] <spencerdawkins> What does "charged" mean in the IETF context?
[09:26:33] <spencerdawkins> John - committes are appointed and charged with a task, "this is what we wish you do"
[09:27:19] <spencerdawkins> IETFish word would be "charter" - did not choose to use this word, but think we are talking about the same thing
[09:29:51] --- momose has joined
[09:32:10] <Jim Galvin> margaret: concerned about excluding IESG. why make them special since they are a part of the community.
[09:32:30] --- Bill has joined
[09:32:34] <Jim Galvin> narten: suggest to just say " former or current" iesg members and let brian sort it out when the group is formed.
[09:33:00] <Jim Galvin> consensus so brian said had the minutes reflect that point and let's move on.
[09:34:03] <spencerdawkins> leslie - design team is informative, not normative, I could start a design team, too, and the best document should be the one we go with
[09:34:50] <spencerdawkins> do people think this is interesting?
[09:35:37] <spencerdawkins> hum... more in favor, but loud humming against
[09:36:00] <spencerdawkins> klensin - community is exhausted by process issues, even if they are important
[09:36:11] --- bkhabs@jabber.org has left
[09:36:34] <spencerdawkins> friday morning meeting is not the community, against technical discussions
[09:36:51] <spencerdawkins> most process activity goes nowhere and people get more irritated
[09:37:30] <spencerdawkins> put this off for a year, figure out what IASA can do and let community recover
[09:37:51] <spencerdawkins> Brian - this is PESCI follow-on, PESCI team recommended this
[09:38:22] --- Bill has left
[09:38:39] <spencerdawkins> lack of followon to PESCI means something
[09:39:01] <spencerdawkins> Margaret - didn't see a problem named in these slides that we're trying to solve
[09:39:34] <spencerdawkins> thomas - agree with klensin - look at priorities and focus on the problem
[09:40:09] <doug_trend@jabber.org> Proposed Deliverables
[09:44:28] <spencerdawkins> spencer - Problem WG did a problem statement, published as RFC, but now I'm hearing that the problems have changed - be tactical
[09:44:44] <spencerdawkins> don't have time to study them AGAIN
[09:45:42] <spencerdawkins> klensin - tried newtrk design team, collapsed, tried pesci design team, collapsed, Problem WG collapsed ... concern is that we collapse in a public way
[09:46:07] <spencerdawkins> design team isn't quietly producing document that the communty decides is useful
[09:46:38] <spencerdawkins> going to be visible, outside the IETF, makes us look ineffective and dysfunctional
[09:47:37] <spencerdawkins> are there people who are willing to work on this? couple of hands... three or four
[09:47:57] <spencerdawkins> not looking to form a working group, only to get something done
[09:48:28] <spencerdawkins> Brian seeing positive responses somewhat, but do know we need to take this one bullet at a time
[09:48:44] <spencerdawkins> Margaret Wasserman, WG Procedures
[09:49:47] <spencerdawkins> didn't get quite as far along as previous group
[09:50:24] <doug_trend@jabber.org> Mini BOF Agenda
[09:50:26] <spencerdawkins> Going through slides, please hold questions until the end
[09:50:46] <spencerdawkins> do we need an update to 2418?
[09:51:02] <spencerdawkins> do we need a fundamental change to the WG procedure?
[09:51:48] <doug_trend@jabber.org> Status of WG Procedures
[09:52:25] <spencerdawkins> 2418 has stood test of time, but some places are outdated
[09:53:34] <doug_trend@jabber.org> (3)
[09:54:13] --- narten has left
[09:54:14] <spencerdawkins> biggest problem is that 2418 contains procedures that are more likely to be outdated ("e-mail addresses")
[09:55:02] <spencerdawkins> does not map to principles, policies, and procedures breakdown from last gen area meeting
[09:55:30] <spencerdawkins> ScottB - details were in 2418 because this was the only place to put them, not because it was the RIGHT place
[09:56:21] <spencerdawkins> have been able to improve process within bounds of 2418 - PROTO, TOOLS, EDU, etc. - no action required for this to continue
[09:57:10] <spencerdawkins> lucy - Olaf and Dave Meyer had very nice document on some WG procedures, but it died - revving it?
[09:58:33] <doug_trend@jabber.org> Incremental Update Needed?
[09:59:11] <spencerdawkins> how to control the scope of an update? How do we organize to do this work?
[09:59:35] <spencerdawkins> is substantial change needed?
[10:00:18] <spencerdawkins> Survey to allow brainstorming?
[10:00:26] <doug_trend@jabber.org> Survey Concept
[10:01:42] <doug_trend@jabber.org> (2)
[10:01:59] <spencerdawkins> don't have agreement on what TYPE of survey to do, of course (5 people, nine opinions)
[10:04:35] <Jim Galvin> spencer: agree that incremental changes should continue. would like to encourage a review of more substantial changes and I am volunteer for doing so.
[10:04:48] <doug_trend@jabber.org> Discussion Questions
[10:06:50] <spencerdawkins> Spencer rant, see minutes...
[10:06:50] <Jim Galvin> brian: 2418 has both procedural information and advice.
[10:07:02] <Jim Galvin> brian: my question is do we want to make 2418 bigger or smaller?
[10:07:23] <spencerdawkins> Thomas - don't rathole on surveys, could people propose top 10 areas to improve?
[10:07:50] <spencerdawkins> incremental updates are cleaner, tied to EDU and WG chairs trainings
[10:08:16] <spencerdawkins> may identify things that need to be fixed in 2418, but don't focus on this
[10:09:29] <spencerdawkins> John Leslie - 3710 says IESG is responsible for working group functioning. 2418 is there. Most procedures belong on a web page
[10:09:55] <spencerdawkins> make 2418 small enough that everything is stable
[10:10:21] <spencerdawkins> reaching consensus out of whole cloth is painful - only do it once, then get consensus on small things
[10:10:51] <spencerdawkins> all procedures are (probably) on websites anyway, and then they can diverge. BCP not best place to put procedures
[10:11:11] <spencerdawkins> ScottBrim - not five or six usual voices, need broader input
[10:11:50] <spencerdawkins> bigger/smaller, wait and see? In order to know what we can eliminate, we need to look at what's on the web now, so could be wait and see as well
[10:12:34] <spencerdawkins> robert sparks - 3 different types of things, separate these - rules, advice, operational parameters - separate in the survey as well
[10:13:36] <spencerdawkins> web is good, involved in communities that are relying on wikis, and every one thought it was going to be easy figuring out what was ephemeral and have always overstepped
[10:14:14] <spencerdawkins> Bradner- 2418 includes rules, these aren't web page candidates. Procedures should obviously be web pages
[10:14:49] <spencerdawkins> Brian - have seen an appeal about using a different mailing list (address) than what was in the standards-track RFC
[10:16:30] <spencerdawkins> Olaf - my working group is special, and all of the others are, too
[10:17:04] <spencerdawkins> Hums -
[10:17:59] <spencerdawkins> Olaf - what we did with agenda and minutes are suited for a wiki, right?
[10:18:14] <spencerdawkins> Margaret - WG chair Wiki for advice would be a great thing
[10:18:51] <spencerdawkins> Brian - Informational RFC about what WGs should know about IPR - obvious Wiki candidate
[10:19:42] <spencerdawkins> Aaron - please tease apart rules, procedures, and advice - all important but need to stop being conflated. Do we all agree on this?
[10:21:22] <spencerdawkins> Hums - interested in survey? some yeses, same number of noes
[10:21:58] <spencerdawkins> willing to do the work? one hand, so won't happen without more hands
[10:22:08] --- FDupont has joined
[10:22:26] <spencerdawkins> klensin - doing good surveys is hard, doing bad ones is irritating
[10:22:26] --- lars has left: Lost connection
[10:23:05] <spencerdawkins> lucy lynch - as alternative - ask ADs for a really good working group in each area, write for IETF journal
[10:24:01] <spencerdawkins> hum for incremental updates to 2418?
[10:24:04] --- nm has left
[10:24:26] <spencerdawkins> 12 for, none against
[10:24:47] <spencerdawkins> some hands willing to help, please send e-mail volunteering
[10:24:57] --- klensin has joined
[10:24:57] <spencerdawkins> to margaret
[10:25:16] <spencerdawkins> need proposed document to even talk about this coherently
[10:25:43] <spencerdawkins> no one objects to what the group does in a bar...
[10:25:55] --- klensin has left: Replaced by new connection
[10:27:59] --- hartmans has joined
[10:28:06] <spencerdawkins> "General Area Working Group"? Aaron, should have a proposal first
[10:28:37] <spencerdawkins> no way to ask the question without a proposal
[10:28:47] --- klensin has joined
[10:29:04] <spencerdawkins> there are people interested, should go away and report back in order for anything else to happen
[10:29:20] --- hartmans has left
[10:30:08] --- julian.reschke has left
[10:34:09] --- klensin has left: Replaced by new connection
[10:34:47] <spencerdawkins> John Galvin on mailing list procedures
[10:35:11] --- klensin has joined
[10:35:41] <spencerdawkins> presenting principles and structure - document has definitions of roles and phases
[10:35:44] --- julian.reschke has joined
[10:38:34] <spencerdawkins> need mailing list group consituted, and discussion of how this happens, and how it operates
[10:39:40] <spencerdawkins> delegate policies and procedures from IESG? Wiki would not have heavyweight cycle
[10:40:36] <spencerdawkins> Scott Bradner - where are you publishing these rules? On a website, but haven't specified procedures
[10:41:16] <spencerdawkins> Scott - worried about procedures that can be used to stifle discussion being on a website
[10:41:35] <spencerdawkins> Brian - we do have IESG statements that are only on a webpage
[10:41:42] <spencerdawkins> Scott - worried about this, too...
[10:42:04] <spencerdawkins> Greg - if we have policies and procedures they should be documented in RFCs
[10:42:39] <spencerdawkins> brian - always a judgement call on where the boundary is
[10:43:47] <falk@jabber.isi.edu> The content of this email was at one time considered by the IETF, and therefore it may resemble a current IETF work in progress or a published IETF work. This email is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard. The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this email for any purpose and in particular notes that the decision to publish is not based on IETF review for such things as security, congestion control, or inappropriate interaction with deployed protocols. The IETF has chosen to forward this email at its discretion. Readers of this email should exercise caution in evaluating its value for implementation and deployment. See RFC 3932 for more information.
[10:44:16] <falk@jabber.isi.edu> Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the IETF. E-mail may be susceptible to data corruption, interception, unauthorised amendment, viruses and unforeseen delays, and we do not accept liability for any such data corruption, interception, unauthorised amendment, viruses and delays or the consequences thereof. Accordingly, this e-mail and any attachments are opened at your own risk.
[10:44:44] <spencerdawkins> want to report at third IETF - brian - that would be a BOF request, get 'em in soon, deadline coming up
[10:44:55] <spencerdawkins> Brian at back microphone
[10:45:23] <spencerdawkins> don't mention non-WG lists that are IETF lists, that's important. Easy fix, but needs to be fixed
[10:46:05] --- momose has left
[10:46:26] <spencerdawkins> closed working group lists? IESG lists, IAB lists ... don't refer to closed lists, design teams aren't working group lists if they are closed
[10:47:22] <spencerdawkins> brian - favors formation of group to manage this, IESG should not be judge and jury, this isn't technical and isn't process-related, suspensions are personal and it's hard to be objective
[10:47:58] <spencerdawkins> Why would IESG be in the appeal chain?
[10:48:07] <spencerdawkins> seemed like the logical thing to do
[10:48:31] <spencerdawkins> need to make sure process LOOKS fair, especially to IAB and ISOC Board
[10:48:57] <spencerdawkins> David - why mention closed working group list? Document is intended to cover IETF mailing lists, some are closed
[10:52:37] <spencerdawkins> bradner - one requirement is for archiving as part of fairness review, etc
[10:52:56] <spencerdawkins> can be subpoenaed
[10:53:23] <spencerdawkins> don't go there on closed lists (archiving, access to archives, etc)
[10:54:16] <spencerdawkins> is IESG list an official IETF list? yes - sometimes it's best to not have rules
[10:55:02] <spencerdawkins> May not even have a list address - just a name and a bunch of E-mail addresses that send back and forth
[10:55:34] --- hartmans has joined
[10:55:35] --- pk has joined
[10:55:56] <spencerdawkins> brian - can't bar banned participants from iesg lists because have to be able to receive appeals - may even need to say "we say nothing"
[10:56:13] <spencerdawkins> lucy - we conflated management and moderation in our discussions
[10:56:37] <spencerdawkins> may need to separate this
[10:56:39] --- hartmans has left
[10:58:21] <spencerdawkins> hum - moving this work forward -
[10:58:35] <spencerdawkins> hums to advance, none against
[10:58:50] <spencerdawkins> is this a good place to start? some hums, none against
[11:00:45] <spencerdawkins> klensin - process exhaustion that "community approval" may reflect a small number of people.
[11:01:42] <spencerdawkins> brian really wants to replace RFC 3683, and Klensin thinks that's how 3683 was approved
[11:02:17] <spencerdawkins> Scott Bradner - can't just be a few geeks in a corner. Working group may not be the right mechanism but has to have visibility
[11:02:42] --- rpelletier has left
[11:02:51] <spencerdawkins> klensin - would be happier with a few geeks in the corner than a few process junkies in a corner (laughter)
[11:03:23] <spencerdawkins> Margaret - not comfortable with separate mailing list - collects weirdos and hides from newbies, cuts down on openness.
[11:03:32] <spencerdawkins> go out on IETF mailing list first
[11:04:34] <spencerdawkins> brian - have to at least hold a BOF at some point
[11:05:27] <spencerdawkins> joel - concerned that we may be trying to determine the indeterminate - very hard to tell what people think, most are silent, some people will agree with anything and others will disagree with anything
[11:05:37] --- klensin has left: Replaced by new connection
[11:06:28] <spencerdawkins> klensin - propose experiment - short draft, current procedure is to deprecate current mechanism and return to previous status quo.
[11:06:38] <spencerdawkins> we could get strong consensus for that step
[11:07:36] --- klensin has joined
[11:08:25] <spencerdawkins> margaret - kind of agree with klensin, but my quickie version would be longer - share joel's concern that we can't get consensus, and that's the only way we know how to decide what to do
[11:08:38] <spencerdawkins> don't agree that we should fly under the radar
[11:09:21] <spencerdawkins> Jim - "random mailing list" - if I understand comments, it's about visibility - work is occuring
[11:09:33] <spencerdawkins> using a mailing list is just bypassing charter
[11:11:30] <spencerdawkins> spencer rant on too many mailing lists actually lowers transparency
[11:12:02] <spencerdawkins> klensin - spencer's list inspires a thought - ask for people who are willing to summarize process summary to community?
[11:12:31] <spencerdawkins> like IESG narrative minutes, would be able to talk about community consensus on process issues again
[11:12:41] --- fparent@jabber.org has joined
[11:12:46] <spencerdawkins> OTHER BUSINESS -
[11:12:50] <spencerdawkins> ION draft
[11:13:20] <spencerdawkins> hasn't been approved by IESG, but that's because Harald went on vacation
[11:13:50] <spencerdawkins> NORMREF would simplify and clarify downref process
[11:14:12] <spencerdawkins> not approved yet, but good discussion this week
[11:14:41] <spencerdawkins> IANA-CONSIDERATIONS is still in process, hard to finish because still getting good suggestions
[11:15:02] <spencerdawkins> SUCCESSFUL-BOF - should be an ION?
[11:15:38] <spencerdawkins> IETF-DISPUTES - hasn't gotten a lot of traction
[11:16:31] <spencerdawkins> margaret - interested because of opportunity to fix something else
[11:17:08] --- Jim Galvin has left
[11:17:16] <spencerdawkins> IAB produces documents that are not approved by IESG, don't have issues actively but is there an appeal process?
[11:18:09] <spencerdawkins> no further appeal if IAB agrees with itself
[11:18:54] <spencerdawkins> leslie - you can bring up issues to IAB, and appeal process issues to ISOC BoT, rest is recalls
[11:19:21] <spencerdawkins> tree has to top somewhere
[11:19:49] <spencerdawkins> PROTOCOL-EXTENSIONS
[11:20:25] --- spencerdawkins has left
[11:21:17] --- pk has left
[11:23:57] --- Melinda has left
[11:24:26] --- klensin has left
[11:24:47] --- julian.reschke has left
[11:28:50] --- FDupont has left: Computer went to sleep
[11:29:09] --- falk@jabber.isi.edu has left
[11:36:02] --- leslie@ecotroph.net has left: Logged out
[11:39:54] --- fparent@jabber.org has left
[11:40:01] --- lea.roberts has left
[11:40:48] --- doug_trend@jabber.org has left: Logged out
[11:49:22] --- elwynd has left
[12:45:05] --- elwynd has joined
[14:35:19] --- elwynd has left
[15:46:36] --- elwynd has joined
[18:53:16] --- elwynd has left