[09:48:54] --- spencerdawkins has become available [09:49:05] --- spencerdawkins has left [09:50:08] --- jlcjohn has become available [09:57:09] --- jlcjohn has left: Computer went to sleep [09:59:07] --- Eliot Lear has become available [09:59:46] --- Aaron has become available [10:00:04] this is the pufi bof. [10:02:29] --- dthaler has become available [10:03:15] --- amalis has become available [10:04:18] --- jlcjohn has become available [10:04:42] anybody on audio? [10:04:44] anyone remote have audio? [10:04:58] --- Ted has become available [10:05:10] pete has brought the meeting to order [10:05:14] Should be channel 1 [10:05:33] looking for an additional jabber scribes given that the two volunteers are on cold drugs [10:05:41] http://videolab.uoregon.edu/events/ietf/ietf711.m3u [10:05:51] (for audio) [10:05:53] many jokes now being made about the bof name [10:05:53] --- psavola has become available [10:06:05] discussion of swelling of heads [10:06:11] poof [10:06:16] is there anyone remote? [10:06:20] poof-ee [10:06:44] --- henrik@levkowetz.com has become available [10:06:45] Is there anyone remote listening in? [10:06:46] --- Ted has left: Replaced by new connection. [10:06:46] --- Ted has become available [10:07:01] pete's rules of order: will cut off people at his choice. [10:07:08] agenda [10:07:23] --- Paul Hoffman has become available [10:07:34] this started as draft-carpenter-2026-changes [10:07:43] people said let's have a broader discussion [10:08:13] --- henrik@levkowetz.com has left: Disconnected [10:08:21] NOTE WELL warning applies [10:08:31] please read it if you haven't already [10:08:50] --- henrik@levkowetz.com has become available [10:09:01] pete broke out the general classes of issues [10:09:07] see slides in meeting materials for list [10:09:19] ordered by simplicity of change in pete's opinion [10:09:38] most are based on changes in brian's document [10:09:51] simply because most of brian's changes are simple [10:10:03] ground rules [10:10:18] --- danwing has become available [10:10:25] gauge consensus on two criteria [10:10:32] 1. amount of pain of the change [10:10:41] 2. motivation to change the current state [10:11:15] a reasonable conclusion might be to scrap the whole thing... [10:11:18] john klensin: [10:11:27] we'll need to identify the victim when it comes to pain caused [10:11:35] --- Ted has left: Disconnected. [10:11:35] scott bradner (sob): [10:11:50] there were two types of messages [10:11:53] 1. nitpicky [10:12:14] --- Ted has become available [10:12:49] 2. why are we trying to do this right now? we've been burnt out, we've run into structural issues on how to change, and yet you're looking at the individual things that we can change them [10:12:56] pete: [10:12:59] ground rules [10:13:23] in this room, iab and iesg members have no different standing than any other individual. [10:13:27] HOWEVER... [10:13:46] russ may say "what was the consensus?" and then make a decision from there.. [10:14:58] russ can judge whether this effort will go ahead [10:15:24] if the room says we'll go ahead without you, that would be an appealable item. [10:16:04] so it may turn out to be the case that there is no energy to do anything other than the nitpicky items. [10:16:25] sob: [10:16:29] appealing is not very appealing [10:17:00] iesg not being interested is only part of it. [10:17:04] the fundamental issue was the community [10:17:12] --- spencerdawkins has become available [10:17:16] --- mrichardson has become available [10:17:19] --- mrichardson has left [10:17:20] very few people with colorful dots [10:17:24] in the room [10:17:51] worried about the constituency in this group. [10:18:02] how many individuals actually commented? [10:18:09] john klensin (jk): [10:18:55] picking off the low lying fruit could easily make this as a system overall worse. [10:19:04] --- mrichardson has become available [10:19:19] --- hta has become available [10:19:39] hi. I think that almost everyone in the room has had a dot in the past. me included if you include nomcom dots. [10:19:40] the current iesg is better than the previous iesg, but at the same time, the ground rule and strategy needs to be addressed. [10:19:43] I've forgotten the agenda's timing. how many minutes were dedicated to the ground rules slide? [10:20:10] is the agenda online somewhere (one iwth timing)? [10:20:12] pr - want to have discussion at the bottom of each list of documents [10:20:43] --- xmlscott has become available [10:21:11] discussion would include whether we've accomplished anything with the low-hanging fruit [10:21:47] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/agenda/pufi.txt has no timing. [10:22:17] dave crocker (dc) - effort could fail for good reasons or bad reasons - we could come up with a long list of why, but isn't helping [10:22:35] what is essential for success? [10:23:07] DOCUMENT HANDLING (1) [10:23:11] aka slide 5 [10:23:21] as if they had slide numbers :-( [10:23:40] DOCUMENT HANDLING (2) (out of order) [10:23:51] I look at them in edit mode, which gives the numbers at the sides [10:24:20] scott bradner (sob) - delta to 2026 is unreadable [10:24:45] pr - don't care about what happens next (2026bis, etc) [10:25:11] jk - some of these issues are more exciting if you revise 2026, not as a delta [10:25:50] we have copious references to 2026, 2026bis has real costs [10:26:00] eliot lear (el) [10:26:45] el - jk just went circular, have to weigh costs, but pr wants to develop list so we can develop costs, what is jk suggesting? [10:27:12] jk - update references is noise if we're revising 2026 [10:27:36] jk - trivial changes don't justify opening 2026 [10:28:13] spencer: [10:28:38] go through the preso until someone pukes and then stop talking [10:28:46] now going through doc handling (2) [10:28:49] "start talking there" [10:29:36] spencer: this is slow [10:30:12] spencer is highly irritated that we're talking about the noisy end of brian's document :-( [10:30:18] pete: is there anyone who thinks the document is worth opening for these four issues alone? [10:30:21] a few people [10:30:45] sob: nit: why are we expiring drafts when we're not expiring drafts [10:31:02] that's not a nit, of course :-( [10:31:25] paul: the wording of any of these changes can end up being significant. [10:31:32] paul (hoffman): [10:32:06] no other process documents get read. [10:32:32] if we agree to anything, we have to reopen 2026bis because of this. [10:32:43] nothing gets read besides 2026 (in tao, in WG chairs) [10:32:44] Andy Mallas: agrees with Paul [10:33:04] who would object to opening 2026bis only for these items? [10:33:25] a significant but not unanimous group of people [10:33:43] stefan ?: shouldn't we start with the important stuff? [10:33:49] Spelled Andy Malis [10:33:59] I think minor changes to 2026 would be beneficial if it got us off saying "2026" and onto saying "the current ruleset"..... [10:34:22] I support small, incremental changes. [10:34:27] eliot: aren't we beyond this question already? [10:34:41] don't try to have revolution at the same time as incremental change. [10:35:04] pete: yes, and we'll need to approach the big issues differently [10:35:20] jari: ask the other question about whether it would be okay? [10:35:42] pete: who is okay with making these changes? [10:36:39] bob: 2026 is a magic number [10:36:47] hundreds of references [10:36:57] so don't obsolete it lightly. [10:37:09] on the other hand we want to make progress somehow [10:38:07] olaf: we should have referred to BCP 9 all the way through [10:38:56] --- Bill has become available [10:39:11] Including I-Ds I count 6086 references to RFC 2026 [10:39:26] harald: {can we just agree to take these to the list once we agree they should be done?} [10:39:51] bob braden: the alst two issues taken together make the internet drafts an archival series. is that what we want? [10:40:56] pete: looking at the first two bullets, so long as the document is open, are these first two items fair game for changing? [10:41:10] paul: you need to ask about individual bullets [10:42:44] john: can you formulate the question on agreement to direct the editing process to come up with some kind of appropriate change. different than what brian has in his doc. [10:42:48] spencer - the problem is that when we do something (like have archives of drafts), THAT has implications, but we're acting like DOCUMENTING it has implications [10:43:10] "there's no problem with doing something, only with documenting it"???? [10:43:37] pete: who believes given an open document, who believes we need to draft some text regarding rfc formating rules? [10:44:03] --- xmlscott has left: Replaced by new connection [10:44:04] --- xmlscott has become available [10:44:06] john: want to clear as much cruft out of the document [10:44:31] pete: who is in favor of putting in reference to RFC formatting rules? [10:44:47] who would like to remove rfc formatting rules? [10:45:09] consensus to remove [10:45:38] who believes we should add a reference to rfc-errata? [10:45:45] rough consensus for. [10:46:15] *** when Pete asked me to scribe, I assumed it was a DoS attack. Now I think it's an attempt to prevent me from going to speermint (and considering speermint as an alternative is disturbing) [10:47:20] scott: it's important to put into the doc that we have an errata mechanism, but not specify the mechanism. [10:47:42] jari: stay focused on the what and not the where [10:47:56] ted: don't run the working group in the bof [10:48:40] pete: no more hand raising exercises [10:48:57] and now a handraising exercise [10:49:26] now on document handling 3 [10:49:51] --- henrik@levkowetz.com has left [10:50:25] john: we should review newtrk work [10:51:10] dave crocker: what makes us think this effort is going to have any success? [10:51:18] paul hoffman: why we should discuss that now? [10:52:13] pete: does anyone consider any of these items nits? [10:52:24] ted: you're driving me crazy [10:52:53] let's stand up when we think we've hit the threashold [10:53:35] --- xmlscott has left: Replaced by new connection [10:53:35] --- xmlscott has become available [10:54:26] john: it is not possible to move forward on any substantive issue without understanding how these changes are approved? [10:55:02] pete: raise your hand if you think we should be addressing the question of how process changes should be made [10:55:34] like if we elected a body who chissels them into stone [10:55:39] or anything less drastic [10:55:48] is there stomach in this room? [10:55:55] I thought he was going with holy election and picking a single individual [10:56:02] Lent is really getting to me, I guess [10:56:15] what will we use for the white smoke? [10:56:22] ipv6 packets? [10:56:30] john: divide the question [10:56:32] We burn our badges [10:56:43] When all the dots are gone, the clean smoke signals the election [10:56:54] ah, see, I can't contribute then since I have no dots [10:56:54] pete: who here thinks it will be necessary to change the handling of procedure changes to get these sorts of problems solved? [10:57:03] about 10 [10:57:14] who believes it would not be necessary? [10:57:16] abou 5 [10:57:21] there are about 30 people [10:57:35] eliot - didn't raise hand, don't know [10:57:50] don't know? balance of the room [10:57:52] a number of "don't knows" [10:58:44] jk - question you asked is tricky because of abiguous "these changes" - even for me, some things don't require process change, but when you go up the scale, it does [10:59:05] jari - moving further from actually doing something, want to align with reality [10:59:50] pr - some people are unwilling to document reality if we are willing to live with that reality [11:00:21] pr - if we put it in the document and it's reality but unacceptable, shouldn't be in the document [11:01:12] sob - updating procedures, or procedures for updating procedures? thought metadiscussion on mailing list was the latter [11:01:28] sob - as chair of newtrk, think metadiscussion is important question [11:01:49] pr - do we believe that the community at large has stomach for these changes? [11:02:23] spencer: a lot of things have changed since the glory days of newtrk [11:02:38] pete: some of those issues predate newtrk [11:03:42] spencer: saying that our documented process doesn't have to match reality is unfair to those who weren't here way back then [11:03:55] harald: question asked doesn't matter [11:04:09] if we do not solve the problem, the ietf will turn irrelevant [11:04:33] do we believe that some group of people can do the work? [11:05:26] john: there are significant risks that trying to do this without support would be dangerous to our cause [11:06:04] we need to determine whether we as a community want to document current reality or where we want reality to be [11:06:23] --- Andrew Sullivan has become available [11:06:35] spencer: looking back at the reading list, ICAR discusses cross area review. [11:06:51] more than half the areas have added area review teams [11:07:09] pure hearts can just start doing things [11:07:12] what's left? [11:07:26] michael richardson: [11:07:45] is there anyone in this room who thinks the current state of affairs is fine? [11:07:49] no [11:08:15] so we probably have 90% of the people who need to be involved. [11:08:41] we're quite light and light hearted in process, except when we record our process [11:08:54] we suffer from tyranny of consensus when it comes to this effort [11:09:03] would like to see small simple steps. [11:09:13] we can do experiments and see how they work [11:09:25] this is one of the reasons newtrk failed [11:10:29] just get used to the idea that we need to update the processes every year or so [11:10:38] pr - [11:11:16] do we think there would be loud shouting against changing procedures in the IETF from community at large? [11:11:33] --- Ted has left [11:11:45] joel - addresses what I wanted to say, but this isn't close to the number of people who care a lot [11:12:33] we don't have rough consensus on what they care about, bipolar response, unable to get to solution. we can pick off the nits, but if we open it, we need to pick off the parts that matter [11:12:55] think we want to do something but disagree with every suggestion - not what I should be doing! [11:13:30] pr - should we propose a different way to change the process? [11:13:36] ph - agree with joel [11:14:21] working group chairs care - don't want to spend a lot of time, but do care. fear-mongering is not right - heard it before [11:14:22] I claim that both sides of the bimodal distribution of opinion are already represented in this room. [11:14:41] el - paul disagreed with me - death by 1000 paper cuts with small changes [11:15:06] haven't figured out how to change yet, need leadership - figure out how to manage consensus on process change [11:15:16] jari - process change is just one item on your list [11:15:30] there are things we can't just get done [11:15:34] but somethings can get done [11:15:36] where to draw the line? [11:15:57] let's pick the ones we can do, and if that's reasonable as an update let's do that? [11:16:01] s/?// [11:16:17] michael richardson: [11:16:45] not a death by a thousand paper cuts, but are not recorded clearly in one place. we should be keeping our documentation to reflect reality. [11:17:00] this is not just for new people but even for old timers who are not aware of the changes. [11:17:21] there are people in this room who do care [11:17:33] are there opinions out there that are not represented in this room? [11:17:35] i suspect not [11:17:42] --- henrik@levkowetz.com has become available [11:17:49] eliot on jabber: what about brian carpenter? [11:18:03] andrew sullivan: [11:18:11] i've only been coming for a few years [11:18:22] --- xmlscott has left [11:18:41] you can't learn the organization based on what's on "paper" [11:18:47] the organization has evolved. [11:18:51] we just haven't documented it [11:19:20] pete: [11:19:41] how many people think that the community will prevent changing the way process changes? [11:19:52] s/prevent/object loudly/ [11:20:00] to the extend that Brian's document is in front of us, there must be people in the room who agree with his views. [11:20:10] so his views are represented. [11:20:21] eliot: i think that's very presumptuous [11:20:35] --- xmlscott has become available [11:20:50] --- hta has left [11:21:42] pete: {roughly repeats the question} [11:22:47] olaf: are we willing to do work that we might face a lack of consensus? [11:22:55] --- Paul Hoffman has left [11:23:14] sob: does the rest of the community give a hoot? [11:23:44] spencer: if we do the work and it is accepted, there will be a mass recall? [11:23:49] spencer: yes we have bimodal responses [11:24:22] spencer: heard sam hartman say "i guess i'm in the rough, but that's what it takes" [11:25:27] jk - would the community accept the idea of making ANY changes - by boredom? by acclamation? - but the question of accepting specific changes is unpredictable [11:26:01] jk - believe answer is overwhelmingly yes, probably from boredom [11:26:22] andy malis - am - need to focus on the people who do understand process change process and do care [11:26:42] aaron - isn't a process change process - we've tried and failed. we're talking about establishing a process [11:27:22] Pete; we have a process. write a draft, get it to the iesg, and have it approved as a bcp [11:27:30] spencer nearly keels over [11:27:32] that's the DOCUMENTED process.... [11:27:46] spencer would have keeled over except he's the only scribe who hasn't died yet [11:28:41] spencer: it's helpful to think about what has changed. [11:28:57] there was a black helicopter view of I* [11:29:06] wg chairs couldn't come together as chairs [11:29:30] --- xmlscott has left: Replaced by new connection [11:29:30] --- xmlscott has become available [11:30:10] --- Paul Hoffman has become available [11:30:30] jk - thinks this iesg is mature enough to consider stuff like this now [11:31:22] pr - who believes that people would accept process change? more than rough consensus "yes" in the room [11:31:34] no one thinks the answer is "no" [11:32:17] jari - now getting to real question [11:32:57] pr - how many read issues list on slides? most of the people in the room, so aware of the list of possibility [11:33:12] dc - people in this room are motivated and want change [11:33:28] dc - we think bulk of community would accept changes [11:33:41] track record isn't that hasn't been enough [11:34:18] "death of 1000 criticisms" - small source, isn't IETF rough consensus. that's the strategic issue this group must deal with or fail [11:34:58] thomas narten (tn) - joel was right. discussion is toxic. why do i want to be here? always a subtext about why change hasn't happened yet [11:35:15] have to find common ground to make progress [11:35:52] simplest thing is aligning with reality, and that would be interesting - have to find common ground at that level in order to move to the next level [11:36:29] pr - some folks say going through a list of changes would be problematic without dealing with issue of process change differently [11:37:02] pr - not choice of do it or don't, choice between going through list and starting with metaprocess [11:37:16] --- hta has become available [11:37:37] tn - subtext is "can't use current process, have to change the rooms", don't trust blank checks that don't have community feedback [11:38:08] af - disagree with dave, listened to tn, be costructive, not critical, so will be constructive [11:38:57] make sure there is active engagement on behalf of iesg for any activity on process change - happy to see iesg members here, they aren't at the mikes, their opinion is worth hearing [11:39:12] jk - worth hearing, but that's part of the problem that causes disconnects [11:39:56] have to change significantly, but community expectation is that consensus will be accepted [11:40:25] have that discussion instead of "what can we slip past iesg" - but that's been important in the past [11:40:28] russ: [11:40:54] in the context of newtrk, the iesg took the proposal as one of putting more work on the iesg, and so we thought it would make the problem worse and not better, [11:41:07] and that led to a dialog that ended the effort, rather than getting to a compromise solution [11:41:16] and i think we would get to a different approach here. [11:41:39] jari: the current iesg is very willing to make procedural changes, but we're not willing to write blank checks [11:42:11] i would like to do an update that goes through doc handling 1-8 but took out 3, 7, and 8. that would be useful enough. [11:42:18] --- Ted has become available [11:42:39] that was the newtrkish stuff [11:42:55] el - suggest going through issues so we know what jari was talking about [11:43:20] do a couple of passes here, process was always supposed to be iterative, just not every six months [11:43:40] el - please don't comment on every issue or even every slide! [11:44:30] nomcom/recall issues [11:44:54] (pr asking for sense of the room on this slide) [11:45:53] not calling out iesg separately [11:46:00] el - don't have consensus? [11:46:01] One of these changes is structural, and one is not. I think the recall petitioners is quite reasonable; I do not agree with two-phase nomcom. [11:46:07] pr - but it's bi-polar [11:46:20] So I think we just made a decision based on how pete organized the slides, rather than any more real taxonomy [11:46:35] procedural changes (1) - triviality [11:47:01] dc - slides show why cities need zoning... [11:47:14] process changes (2) [11:48:06] I object to the characterization of -twolevel.... [11:49:11] technical review bullet? [11:49:11] --- Eliot Lear has left: Lost connection [11:49:20] --- henrik@levkowetz.com has left [11:49:59] th - can you get back to running the actual bof? [11:50:18] --- psavola has left [11:50:27] pr - so we want to take on big process change? [11:50:30] --- Eliot Lear has become available [11:51:05] jh - whole raft of ideas, good to disaster. asking questions about entire slides keeps me from giving useful comments [11:52:13] el - if iesg lets group go forward, start with this list, with iesg, and ask if there is room for change here, have to have iesg involvement [11:52:18] in the working group [11:52:59] Is it fair for me to think that there are three broad topics under discussion here: (1) should we undertake the process for changing the process of changing? (2) should we undertake process changes? (3) should we document the way the process as documented today is not the one we follow? [11:53:04] pr - groundrules are for discussion, now it looks like we want discussion to continue about procedural change, with iesg members as individuals [11:53:07] Or am I completely wrong about that? [11:53:28] (andrew - you're at least close) [11:53:55] --- klensin has become available [11:54:09] pr - cross bridge of "iesg non-approval of community consensus" when we come to it [11:54:10] spencerdawkins: thanks. I wasn't sure if I was extraordinarily confused, or only confused in a normal way [11:54:55] af - three clases of work - document current process, tickytack improvements might be worth throwing in, long list of new and improved process that requires analysis [11:55:06] do we need to sort through the list before WG is created? [11:55:27] would help us to use our remaining seven minutes more effectively [11:55:42] pr - read of room is "should not go through list in seven minutes" [11:55:56] don't have second BOF to go through list - right? [11:56:20] af - or mailing list discussion - just before dublin [11:56:29] before wg forms [11:56:58] russ - aaron said "maybe we just need a mailing list" - clear that we can't charter working group without scope [11:57:57] jk - we should think more creatively for structuring ways of creating and improving documents [11:58:19] requires creativity [11:58:24] ted: [11:58:39] i'm disappointed i couldn't come up with an acronym of blank check [11:58:49] let's split the effort [11:58:53] have two different groups [11:59:01] 1. handle process change [11:59:13] 2. handle process change process [11:59:26] let these groups be completely separate [11:59:50] this way we avoid polution based on the sort of process changes [12:00:04] can't see a way of doing it other than serialization such that both people don't end up on both lists [12:00:08] sob: [12:00:17] good point [12:00:30] is the Arc-B a reference to Hitch-Hickers Guide? (Just asking for confirmation) [12:00:35] too much compulsion about the current lists [12:00:36] yes, Ark-B [12:00:40] a lot has happened since then. [12:00:52] a lot of new thinking about what could happen since then [12:01:33] I assume that the process-change-proceedure group might be the group of telephone sanitiziers, and marketing-middle-managers. [12:01:57] are people here willing to work on process change process? [12:02:00] (a few) [12:02:04] mrichardson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Places_in_The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Golgafrincham [12:02:15] and then process changes? [12:02:36] pete: we have a direction of something to do [12:02:37] --- danwing has left [12:02:55] yeah, I'm initimately familliar with HHGG.... I read it 14 times when I was a teen and was hospitalized for 2 months. [12:03:01] --- danwing has become available [12:03:02] I just wasn't sure I understand the analogy. [12:03:06] aaron: i'm disappointed that we didn't cover the difference between what we do and what we say we do [12:03:53] bob braden: frustrated about ? [12:04:02] --- danwing has left [12:04:03] ..how he spent 2 hours [12:04:13] --- Paul Hoffman has left [12:04:28] now we seem to be backing off because the iesg might not let us have one... [12:04:43] pete: [12:04:48] we have three design teams [12:05:18] --- Aaron has left [12:05:22] we're adjourned [12:05:26] --- Eliot Lear has left [12:06:08] --- klensin has left [12:06:46] --- Ted has left [12:06:50] --- amalis has left [12:07:02] --- Andrew Sullivan has left [12:07:11] --- Bill has left [12:07:26] --- hta has left [12:18:09] --- dthaler has left [12:35:49] --- spencerdawkins has left [12:39:14] --- mrichardson has left [12:49:12] --- Aaron has become available [12:55:43] --- Aaron has left [13:11:03] --- jlcjohn has left: Computer went to sleep [13:14:36] --- Aaron has become available [13:16:59] --- Aaron has left [13:19:09] --- xmlscott has left [13:24:40] --- becarpenter has become available [13:27:30] --- becarpenter has left [13:37:17] --- becarpenter has become available [13:44:20] --- becarpenter has left