[09:33:50] --- LOGGING STARTED
[09:34:47] --- LOGGING STARTED
[15:44:25] --- LOGGING STARTED
[17:33:47] --- michael has joined
[17:36:59] --- tonyhansen has joined
[18:43:53] --- michael has left
[19:08:16] --- rjs3 has joined
[19:19:42] --- jis has joined
[19:19:57] <jis> Hello from Boston
[19:20:13] <jis> Waiting for the mbone broadcast to start
[19:20:48] --- yone has joined
[19:22:34] --- lisaDusseault has joined
[19:24:58] --- leslie has joined
[19:24:58] <lisaDusseault> They're starting to do sound tests but that may only be the speakers/mics for this room.
[19:28:15] --- orange has joined
[19:28:58] --- anewton has joined
[19:29:30] --- tomphelan has joined
[19:29:35] --- Joseph has joined
[19:32:01] --- hartmans has joined
[19:33:28] --- tlyu has joined
[19:34:33] --- sleinen has joined
[19:35:13] <anewton> htra: introducing meeting
[19:35:29] --- amarine has joined
[19:35:55] <anewton> hta: plenaries being split. today: report admin, relationships, process. tomorrow: "open minds, open mikes"
[19:36:28] <anewton> hta: tomorrow architecutral topic: "insecurities at the edge", open input to IESG and IAB, feedback on the issues reported today.
[19:37:00] --- wivancic has joined
[19:37:31] --- shep has joined
[19:37:32] --- ggm has joined
[19:38:12] --- lha has joined
[19:38:14] <anewton> hta: tonight's agenda: welcome, reprot from iesg, report from iab (include appeals report), hello from nomcom, report from advisory comm., iesg's work on ietf process
[19:38:37] --- brabson has joined
[19:39:10] <anewton> hta: attendance 1211, vienna 1304, san fran 1679, altanta 1570
[19:39:23] <anewton> hta: 29 countries, far less than in Vienna
[19:39:31] <anewton> hta: 256 companies.
[19:39:53] <anewton> hta: special thanks: secretariat staff, technical volunteer crew
[19:40:19] <anewton> hta: constributors in kind (many, many), the multicast crew, hotel and staff
[19:40:36] <anewton> hta: talking about people running wifi in adhoc mode
[19:40:53] <anewton> hta: somebody ddos'ed the chat server.
[19:41:37] <anewton> room: applauds contributors
[19:41:55] --- Bill has joined
[19:42:06] <anewton> hta: future meetings: spring ietf 2004 Soel Korea Host: samsung feb 28 to march 5
[19:42:26] <anewton> hta: summer ietf back in the us probably: august 1-6
[19:42:27] --- hardie has joined
[19:42:35] <anewton> hta: fall ietf: probably us, too
[19:42:45] <anewton> hta: november 7-12
[19:42:52] <anewton> hta: we may have a sponsor
[19:43:17] <anewton> hta: recent rfcs: 3550 to 3645
[19:44:05] <anewton> hta: dhcptv6 finally publish, diameter published, rtp to draft, security considerations (rfc 3552), many sip relate documents, many others, standards work is getting done. maintenance is getting done.
[19:44:21] --- mrose has joined
[19:44:30] <anewton> hta: showing graph on finances
[19:44:47] --- ekr has joined
[19:44:52] <anewton> hta: this is secretariat budget, rfc editor budget not included.
[19:44:53] --- bert has joined
[19:45:18] --- thatoneguy has joined
[19:45:20] <anewton> hta: graph shows income below expense
[19:45:24] --- ekr has left
[19:45:36] <anewton> hta: we have a problem and we have to deal with it.
[19:46:06] --- tlyu has left: Lost connection
[19:46:18] <anewton> hta: what we want to talk about today. advisory comm. & iesg report on process improvement
[19:46:38] --- hildjj has joined
[19:46:45] <anewton> lld: iab plenary report
[19:46:57] --- cdl has joined
[19:47:02] --- tomphelan has left: Disconnected
[19:47:04] --- raeburn has joined
[19:47:08] --- stpeter has joined
[19:47:24] <anewton> lld: agenda for iab report: chair remarks, iana report, rfc-editor rport, irtf report, appeal report,
[19:47:50] <anewton> lld: iab document highlights: http://www.iab.org/documents/selected-iab-documents.html
[19:47:58] --- eblanton has joined
[19:48:07] <anewton> lld: iab monthly meetings are minuted and on web site
[19:48:33] --- avri has joined
[19:48:35] <anewton> lld: nearing completion - congestion control for voice traffic, concerns and recs for inet evolution
[19:49:04] <anewton> lld: published/in queue: service identifier packet header, security mechanisms, isoc trustee thingy stuff
[19:49:24] <anewton> lld: commentary on verisign wildcard activity
[19:49:37] <anewton> lld: notes that she recused herself and that hta ran the process
[19:49:45] --- sakai has joined
[19:49:52] <anewton> lld: tony hain's appeal of v6 site local
[19:50:01] <anewton> lld: advisory committee
[19:50:39] --- eblanton has left
[19:50:40] <anewton> lld: iab response to appeal from Tony Hain
[19:50:51] <anewton> lld: much text -- 40kb
[19:50:56] --- IETF plenary has joined
[19:53:22] --- anewton has left
[19:53:23] --- Eliot Lear has joined
[19:53:32] --- anewton has joined
[19:53:41] <anewton> lld: iab's conclusion
[19:54:00] <anewton> lld: the wg chairs actied within the parameters of the documented procedures
[19:54:15] <anewton> lld: the consensus decision was correctly found
[19:54:22] <anewton> lld: iab upholds iesg decision
[19:54:34] <anewton> lld: http://www.iab.org/appeals
[19:55:03] --- AndrewDMcGregor has joined
[19:55:11] <anewton> lld: moving to IANA and report from John Crain
[19:55:12] --- jmcollis has joined
[19:55:33] <anewton> jc: introduces himself
[19:55:47] <anewton> jc: extending staff at iana to cope with work load
[19:56:04] --- IETF plenary has left: Disconnected
[19:56:04] <anewton> jc: shows picture of michelle
[19:56:16] <anewton> jc: Michelle is going on maternity leave
[19:56:25] <anewton> jc: new iana gm - doug barton
[19:56:27] <Eliot Lear> who is jc?
[19:56:28] --- perry has joined
[19:56:34] --- hardie has left: Disconnected
[19:56:35] <stpeter> John Crain
[19:56:35] <anewton> jc: additional staff - Steve Conte
[19:56:39] <Eliot Lear> tnx
[19:56:42] --- hardie has joined
[19:56:44] --- Ole has joined
[19:56:56] <anewton> jc: iana matrix wil replace current registry page next week
[19:57:08] <anewton> jc: hopefully that will make naviagation easier
[19:57:17] <anewton> jc: workflow software in testing
[19:57:25] <anewton> jc: introduces Doug Barton
[19:57:42] <anewton> db: hello
[19:58:09] --- cdl has left: Disconnected
[19:58:12] <anewton> db: slide "howdy"
[19:58:21] <anewton> db: currently DNS admin for Yahoo
[19:58:33] <anewton> db: background operations, development, and policy
[19:58:44] <anewton> db: transitioning to full time iana work in december
[19:58:56] <anewton> db: my position is being added to the IANA staff
[19:59:04] --- mrose has left
[19:59:15] <anewton> db: draws parallel between his current job and new position
[19:59:26] <anewton> db: makes joke about his size
[19:59:41] <Ole> A good joke!
[19:59:54] <anewton> db: this shows that ICANN believes IANA needs more resources than have been dedicated in the past
[19:59:54] --- leslie has left: Replaced by new connection
[19:59:58] --- warlord has joined
[19:59:59] --- mrose has joined
[20:00:14] <anewton> db: big open source fan, bsd developer, ran an IRC network...
[20:00:27] <anewton> db: involvement in IETF has been limited.
[20:00:49] <anewton> db: hoping ot expand working group and iana/rfc responsiblity level and work with ietf
[20:01:02] <anewton> db: degrees in psychology, philosophy, and religion
[20:01:24] <anewton> db: internet user since 1994, member of icann security and stability advisory committee
[20:25:18] --- LOGGING STARTED
[20:26:22] --- orange has joined
[20:26:46] --- hildjj has joined
[20:27:06] --- mukesh77 has joined
[20:27:19] --- Eliot Lear has joined
[20:27:24] --- stpeter has joined
[20:27:29] --- tytso has joined
[20:27:54] --- warlord has joined
[20:28:02] --- resnick has joined
[20:28:10] --- mrose has joined
[20:28:19] <stpeter> sorry, we had to restart the conference service
[20:28:19] --- hartmans has joined
[20:28:19] --- leslie+harald has joined
[20:28:20] --- leslie+harald is now known as leslie
[20:28:31] --- anewton has joined
[20:28:34] <stpeter> experimental technology....
[20:28:35] --- pgm has joined
[20:28:41] --- perry has joined
[20:28:43] --- lisaDusseault has joined
[20:28:48] <anewton> rich draves?: concluding talk on nomcom
[20:29:03] <anewton> rd: will the real nomcom please stand up
[20:29:23] <anewton> hta: thanks Rich for taking on the job
[20:29:40] --- falk has joined
[20:29:46] --- resnick has left: Disconnected
[20:29:53] --- resnick has joined
[20:29:56] <anewton> hta: introducting advisory committee between ietf and other orgs
[20:30:12] --- Ole has joined
[20:30:27] --- Joseph (jishac) has joined
[20:30:47] --- berkinet has joined
[20:30:50] <anewton> I was having trouble determining if it was the wifi or what... oh well. shit happens
[20:31:13] --- mrose has left
[20:31:15] --- Bill has joined
[20:31:18] <anewton> lld: talking about adv. committee
[20:31:33] --- loughney has joined
[20:31:40] <perry> btw, 802.11a is working beautifully right now.
[20:31:57] <anewton> lld: members, Leslie, Herald, Lynn St. Amou, Fred Baker, Biran Carpenter, John Klensin, Steve Crocker, Russ Housley, Bernard Aboba
[20:32:30] --- ggm has joined
[20:32:44] <anewton> lld: time line: ietf 58 presentations of finding and recommendations
[20:33:24] <anewton> lld: mid december: incorporate comments, issue final document
[20:33:39] --- resnick has left: Disconnected
[20:33:42] --- resnick has joined
[20:33:52] --- rajid has joined
[20:34:03] --- mrose has joined
[20:34:13] <anewton> lld: goals and non-gaols
[20:34:21] <loughney> Don't know if it is just me, but I've been getting hit with lots of UDP packets, much worse than previous meetings ...
[20:34:22] <anewton> lld: review IETF admin
[20:34:34] <anewton> didn't get the rest of that slide
[20:34:50] <anewton> lld: ietf functions and orgs -> big list
[20:34:50] --- michael has joined
[20:35:06] <anewton> lld: focusing on middle column "known as with the ietf"
[20:35:24] <anewton> lld: ietf is known as all the work under those names
[20:35:29] --- Joseph (jishac) has left
[20:35:52] <anewton> lld: slide on support orgs.
[20:35:55] --- Joseph (jishac) has joined
[20:36:21] --- jis has joined
[20:36:37] <anewton> lld: slide notes no mou between fortec/cnri. no accurate.
[20:36:59] <anewton> lld: contract in place between isi
[20:37:24] <anewton> lld: icann/ iana
[20:37:25] <loughney> for those wanting to follow the slides on your screen, they are available here: http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/nov2003-minneapolis/
[20:37:33] <anewton> thank you
[20:37:43] <anewton> lld: identified stress points
[20:38:02] <anewton> lld: less formal relationships sometimes cause stress on both parties
[20:38:25] <anewton> lld: ietf operational procs are held in heads of iab/iesg people is a little difficult to pass on
[20:38:50] <anewton> lld: instituional records stored across multiple orgs - pain point
[20:39:06] <anewton> lld: stress point: negative trends in meeting attendance
[20:39:20] <anewton> lld: requirements slide
[20:39:35] --- yone has joined
[20:39:36] <anewton> lld: advcomm composed set of reqs on admin org of ietf
[20:39:53] <anewton> lld: 3 categories of requirements - stewardship
[20:40:15] --- resnick has left
[20:40:26] --- resnick has joined
[20:40:33] <anewton> lld: requirements for resource management
[20:40:40] --- jmcollis has joined
[20:41:07] <anewton> lld: resource management for ietf to deploy resource where needed and understanding who has resp. to avoid micro-management
[20:41:24] <anewton> lld: budgetary autonomy, budgetary unity
[20:41:34] <anewton> lld: flexiblity in service provisioning
[20:41:35] --- sakai has joined
[20:41:42] <anewton> lld: admin efficiency
[20:42:01] <anewton> lld: requirements for working environment
[20:42:13] --- thatoneguy has joined
[20:42:32] <anewton> lld: need to be able to create and maintain working enviro. to create tools, etc...
[20:42:49] <anewton> lld: recommendations: change in ietf admin structure is required
[20:43:24] <anewton> lld: legal entity status is a point for futher ietf focus
[20:43:41] <anewton> lld: adv comm next steps
[20:43:57] <anewton> lld: gaol to send draft to ID editor next week
[20:44:14] <anewton> lld: final version in december
[20:44:42] <anewton> lld: send comments to advcomm@ietf.org
[20:44:56] <anewton> lld: clarifying questions?
[20:45:02] <anewton> room: none
[20:45:03] --- randy has joined
[20:45:08] --- shep has joined
[20:45:35] <anewton> hta: conclusions of the ietf/iab chairs
[20:45:51] <anewton> hta: advcomm extreme summary
[20:46:03] --- leg has joined
[20:46:20] <anewton> hta: ietf legal existance is irregular, lots of work by "fellow travellers", this is not a trivial problem to get right
[20:46:20] --- resnick has left: Disconnected
[20:46:31] <anewton> hta: the plan
[20:46:37] --- Ole has left
[20:46:37] <anewton> lld: the plan
[20:47:05] <anewton> lld: ietf nned of clearer arrangements, chairs of iab & ietf, with support, run the process
[20:47:10] --- mukesh77 has left: Replaced by new connection
[20:47:50] <anewton> lld: ratify at plenary when appropriate, IETF last call when appropriate, small decisions just made. Is it agreeable by the community?
[20:47:55] <anewton> hta: is that ok.
[20:47:57] <anewton> room: hum
[20:48:18] <anewton> scott bradner: "when appropriate" is fuzzy
[20:48:21] --- Eliot Lear has left
[20:48:42] <anewton> hta: if we decide to incorporate, somebody has to physically sign the documents
[20:49:00] <anewton> hta: we have to come to the point where we make decisions
[20:49:11] <anewton> hta: we can't wait every time for every plenary to come around
[20:49:35] --- LOGGING STARTED
[20:49:50] --- mukesh77 has joined
[20:50:37] <mukesh77> Is the room empty ???
[20:50:37] --- anewton has joined
[20:50:47] <mukesh77> Looks like the server was rebooted again :(
[20:50:48] <anewton> grrr....
[20:51:01] <anewton> lld: waterfall approach.
[20:51:19] <anewton> scott bradner: small details make a huge amount of details
[20:51:29] <anewton> hta: last call process used when appropriate
[20:51:54] <anewton> hta: the conclusions were typed in last week... that is why we are not clear because we are still figuring it out
[20:52:03] --- ggm has joined
[20:52:07] <anewton> bob hinden: good thing you are not restricuted by ID deadline
[20:52:19] <anewton> lld: note we did not sneak onto web site
[20:52:23] <ggm> taking money on incorperation not being in brunei, switzerland, japan...
[20:52:27] <anewton> bh: generally supportive of process
[20:52:55] <anewton> bh: wants status report more than every ietf.
[20:52:59] <anewton> lld: to ietf list?
[20:53:01] <anewton> bh: yes
[20:53:13] <anewton> pete resnick: questions slide
[20:53:22] <anewton> pr: "fellow travellers"?
[20:53:47] <anewton> pr: business relationship with rfc editor, etc... are they the fellow travellers
[20:53:49] <anewton> hta: yes
[20:54:03] <anewton> pr: is incorporation the only legal status? is that decided?
[20:54:05] --- sakai has joined
[20:54:05] <anewton> hta: no
[20:54:23] <anewton> keith moore: will you write up plan and subject plan for public review
[20:54:29] --- yone has joined
[20:54:29] <anewton> lld: in what measure
[20:54:41] <anewton> km: circulate written document that poeple sign
[20:54:45] --- dblacka has joined
[20:54:58] <anewton> hta: short answer, you will get to see the plan
[20:55:25] <anewton> hta: you will get to know what we are doing... there will be times we can only say things after the fact. we will avoid that as much as possible
[20:55:29] <anewton> km: give example
[20:55:50] <anewton> lld: experimentor always disturbs the universe they are observing
[20:56:17] <anewton> hta: uses new IANA GM as an example because dealing with people's jobs is not an easy thing for public review
[20:56:30] <anewton> km: wants more detail on what is appropriate
[20:56:46] <anewton> eric flieshman: incorporating in norway or some place else?
[20:57:02] <anewton> hta: tried but nobody could translate the docs to Norwegian
[20:57:03] --- jmcollis has joined
[20:57:08] <anewton> hta: we haven't gotten that far
[20:57:14] <anewton> lld: cutting line as it stands
[20:57:37] <anewton> graham ???: what if iesg/iab disagreee
[20:57:45] <anewton> hta: that means there will be no consensus
[20:58:14] <anewton> john schnizlein: concerned about times when community will be informed after the fact. can you state those decisions. worried about loop holes
[20:58:39] --- rajid has joined
[20:58:49] <anewton> js: is attendance at plenary vehicle ?
[20:59:07] <anewton> lld: set of people at plenary's is disjoint from ietf@ietf.org
[20:59:13] <anewton> lld: we have to announce here.
[20:59:17] --- bert has joined
[20:59:23] <anewton> lld: plenaries are important and part of getting our work done
[20:59:55] --- tonyhansen has joined
[20:59:56] <anewton> js: posting written description before seems to be more our tradition
[21:00:15] <anewton> js: plenaries do not operate the same way other sessions
[21:00:23] <anewton> js: we should strive the same level
[21:00:26] <anewton> lld: point taken
[21:00:52] --- pgm has joined
[21:00:53] <anewton> hta: we agree
[21:01:15] <anewton> ???: concerned about US centric legal language.
[21:01:23] --- thatoneguy has joined
[21:01:27] <anewton> ???: translation for other cultures.
[21:01:45] --- hartmans has joined
[21:02:02] <anewton> ???: debate over IPR is an example where US centric legal views are quite a bit different
[21:02:06] <anewton> room: applause
[21:02:15] <anewton> hta: understood
[21:03:00] <anewton> hta: moving to agenda item: iesg work on ietf process
[21:03:26] <anewton> Ted, Margarett, and Alex summoned to stage
[21:03:46] --- Joseph (jishac) has joined
[21:04:35] <anewton> ted hardie: intro
[21:04:49] <anewton> th: how can we make ourselves effective internally
[21:05:28] <anewton> th: all items meant to fit current IETF scope
[21:05:30] --- leslie+harald has joined
[21:06:09] --- mrose has joined
[21:06:25] <ggm> th nice slogan 'we make the net work' -could have reduced the debate a bit.
[21:06:37] <ggm> th no ietf song pending..
[21:06:52] <ggm> th one key thing we think we need to do is functional differentiation
[21:07:08] <ggm> th pull them apart enough to spread load, without increasing time spend in organizational equivalent of IPC
[21:07:32] <ggm> th get more 'feet on the street' without bumping into each other. avoid distractions
[21:07:47] <ggm> th examples of functional differentiation
[21:07:55] --- warlord has joined
[21:08:07] <ggm> th EDU team. skills focussed. avoid reuse of IAB/IESG/NOMCOM etc make this owrk better
[21:08:09] <mukesh77> Slides at http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/nov2003-minneapolis/iesg-overview.pdf
[21:08:33] <ggm> th some bodies get poached.
[21:08:37] --- hildjj has joined
[21:08:54] <ggm> th differentiate business management from other roles. no need to be co-incident
[21:09:10] <ggm> th split info/experimental review coming in to RFC editor.
[21:09:33] <ggm> th strong connections between editorial series AS A WHOLE but not all need IESG review
[21:09:34] --- pgm has left
[21:09:43] <ggm> th core value: cross functional review
[21:09:50] --- loughney has joined
[21:09:55] <ggm> th sounds like motherhood & apple pie, but really is important
[21:10:16] <ggm> th key thing bringing them here is ALL of us being here. not just routing|ops|app clue, but value from all being here
[21:11:03] <ggm> th individuals participate by WG participation, is in docs. but IETF last call is example of wider role. anybody, at large, bring up issues of subtstance. WG tourism in plenary is another example, bring expertiese [if they read drafts] to a WG.
[21:11:10] <anewton> people read the drafts?
[21:11:19] <ggm> th all help to make success. critical this be overt statement at this point
[21:11:48] <ggm> th cross funct review has to compete for cycles with in-WG work. we all have to understand the value proposition to the wider community.
[21:11:55] <ggm> th have to persuade employers to pay for it.
[21:12:02] <loughney> I read the drafts, but it was not apparent that the drafts were from the IESG. I thought they were individual drafts ...
[21:12:19] <ggm> th buried in leslies slide is the cost as time. have to persuade people to give us that time, which is money to them.
[21:12:34] <ggm> th example proposals on cross funct review. see ALex's talk
[21:12:48] <ggm> th inspired by informal structs always there. sorry struct{....} /* informal */
[21:12:59] <ggm> want to get consistency out
[21:13:07] <ggm> th make auth & responsibility match.
[21:13:26] <ggm> th prime example is WG chair role. update to RFC2418 is aimed at this
[21:13:56] <ggm> th associate activity with named individuals and roles.
[21:14:17] <ggm> th IETF suffers from ambulance syndrome. yell ;'somebody get help' but doesn't help as well as directed instructions eg DOUG..
[21:14:19] <mukesh77> I browsed through the Alex's early review draft and thought the same..
[21:14:27] <mukesh77> that it was individual draft.
[21:14:39] <ggm> th much more sure of help arriving by associating some parts of process with named individuals, make sure stuff arrives on time.
[21:14:44] --- jmcollis has left
[21:14:58] <ggm> th not intended to limit technical comments. not closing the open org. just intended to make sure somebody answers the call for help
[21:15:14] <ggm> th match change management to change. talking about some major change, use correct mechanisms.
[21:15:20] <anewton> Ted was talking about the general process of public review and threw in the point "provided they've read the drafts." That's what I was talking about.
[21:15:29] <ggm> th good example is BoF led by Scott Bradner, tomorrow, reconsider standards track.
[21:15:48] <ggm> th need that level of buy in by the community to achieve consensus process
[21:16:13] <ggm> th proposing WG secretary. better WG minutes, into hands of people who can't be at plenary process, there
[21:16:21] <ggm> th re-invigorate goal without major changes
[21:16:26] <ggm> th next steps
[21:16:56] <ggm> th one - gather feedback. on func diff, cross func/area review, matching auth/responsibility in roles, associate names to activities
[21:17:02] <ggm> f2f tomorrow at mike
[21:17:05] <loughney> c<<http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/nov2003-minneapolis/>> < <anewton> Ted was talking ...> Oh, OK - I understand now .. Jabber doesn't always provide context ...
[21:17:21] <ggm> th timeline is to finish jan1 2004.
[21:17:25] --- tytso has joined
[21:17:42] <ggm> sorry missed this.
[21:17:49] <ggm> th these are the directions. questions?
[21:18:18] <ggm> John Loughney. 'we' used a lot. which WE? ietf? iesg? doc authors? advisers?
[21:18:36] <ggm> th I think I did change antecedents on you a couple of times. presentation agreed to by iesg.
[21:18:54] <ggm> th document was individual doc, talking points for IESG. not associated with draft-hardie... in this form.
[21:19:04] <ggm> th value systems involved, cross area/func we is IETF i hope
[21:19:27] <ggm> BRian Carpenter. didn't mention tools. threads of discussions recently has been tools eg issue trackers discussed at lunch. education or not on list?
[21:19:59] <ggm> th not part of edu. func differentiation. is work going on, inside IESG and outside on tools. not on my list, IESG not driving. may be people in IESG seats who are, can talk later how to make prio for org as a whole.
[21:19:59] --- pgm has joined
[21:20:06] --- stpeter has joined
[21:20:06] <ggm> BC clarification. shame not on list, do not forget
[21:20:09] <ggm> th accept that point
[21:20:17] <ggm> HA thanks ted.
[21:20:29] <ggm> ha this was an introduction, not a call for action. proof of pudding in eating.
[21:20:42] <ggm> ha in addition to general principles, want specific action. Calls Margaret
[21:20:45] --- falk has joined
[21:21:07] <ggm> Margaret Wasserman (mw) draft on auth/responsibility of WG chairs.
[21:21:52] <ggm> mw problem. identified in problem statement. structure doesn't match complexity. 13 people making decisions is not good.
[21:22:11] <ggm> mw workload of IESG is problem. NOMCOM can tell you, hard to find people who can work fulltime. need to make it work part-time
[21:22:40] <ggm> mw ietf in too few hands. funnel to iesg, trust issues, use of AD's as wg chairs, doc eds. same people covering roles
[21:22:46] --- loughney has left
[21:22:51] <mukesh77> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/nov2003-minneapolis/iesg-wgchairs.pdf
[21:22:55] <ggm> mw posit, 230 people in mgt structure, problem is not too few.
[21:23:14] <ggm> mw 7 areas, 13 ad. 130 WG. 220 WG chairs. so 230 people in mgt structure. wide and flat
[21:23:26] <ggm> mw proposal/goals.
[21:23:50] <ggm> mw increase auth/responsibility of WG chairs. goals are scaleibitly/efficiency. is about WG process/mgt. alex will talk to review.
[21:23:56] --- mrose has left
[21:24:29] <ggm> mw move auth from AD to WG chairs. not inconsistent with other proposals like teds outline. may build better WG chairs, candidates for Area management, AD positions. could move other things to WG chairs, area management eg approving BoF
[21:24:34] <ggm> or cross area approvals processes
[21:24:43] <ggm> mw still under discussion. this is first step
[21:24:54] <ggm> mw what new & re-inforced things?
[21:25:03] <ggm> mw change the way we process docs.
[21:25:18] --- gih has joined
[21:25:44] <ggm> mw chair shepards doc through wg process, then pub request step, hands doc to IESG, then responsibility goes to AD. sheparding AD. not only does this cause lack of visibility, means lots of documents handled by same 13 people. change that to remove wg to IESG handoff.
[21:25:57] <ggm> mw give chairs explicit auth to ensure doc quality. authority to do something about it.
[21:26:15] <ggm> mw more explicit WG chairs manage doc production. manage ML. real milestones. manage editors
[21:26:27] <ggm> mw details coming to each.
[21:26:35] <ggm> mw first change. shepard docs throughout lifecycle
[21:26:44] <ggm> mw all last call issue tracking by WG not AD
[21:26:57] <ggm> mw block/nonblock comment clear/closure responsibility
[21:27:17] <ggm> mw also responsible for IANA, authers 48 etc. all the way to RFC
[21:27:31] <ggm> mw big change. significant workload distribution to WG chairs, make job easier.
[21:27:35] <ggm> mw specifics 2
[21:27:49] <ggm> mw chairs responsible for process & output. editorial and technical quality
[21:28:13] <ggm> mw during production, NOT at end, get cross-area review. issues tracked/resolved. process is quality doc focussed
[21:28:17] <ggm> mw third specific
[21:28:22] <ggm> mw re-inforce chairs auth to say NO
[21:28:25] <mukesh77> I agree with mw. We have so many chairs and they are totally underused.
[21:28:46] <ggm> mw when work comes in, WG chair might not accept it. bad choice as starting point, not right level of WG support
[21:28:59] --- mrose has joined
[21:29:04] --- raeburn has joined
[21:29:11] <ggm> mw enough people is one, other is right kinds of people to support - expertise, by area
[21:29:28] <ggm> mw once close to done, want WG chairs to say NO if not ready to go to IESG. not arbitrary
[21:30:01] <ggm> mw even if WG has consensus, chair believes insufficient cross-area review? no answers back from cross-area, WG chair can keep doc.
[21:30:30] <ggm> mw docs morph, events overtake. maybe the work is not relevant any more. id nits, RFC guidelines, etc.
[21:30:31] <hartmans> Can't WG chairs do this sort of thing today?
[21:30:51] <ggm> mw wg chairs HAVE this now. want to re-inforce [she can read your mind mate -ggm]
[21:30:56] <ggm> mw number 4.
[21:30:57] <hartmans> I'd certainly feel comfortable claiming no consensus existed to advance for example if there was insufficient cross-area review.
[21:31:16] <leslie+harald> hartmans: some wg chairs do. some have historically. some don't believe they can.
[21:31:18] <ggm> mw every doc coming in, every stds track, AD has to do ballot write-up. issues, how resolved, arch tradeoffs etc.
[21:31:37] --- maho has joined
[21:31:44] <ggm> mw and a quality review. specific people, quality criteria. idea is to start to have WG chair doing this. should know it.
[21:31:57] <ggm> mw will speak more slowly [laughs]
[21:32:11] --- lha has joined
[21:32:21] <ggm> mw so WG chairs doing more work. does allow WG chairs to control how their doc is represented to the IESG. important in how the IESG sees the doc.
[21:32:26] <ggm> mw fifth change
[21:32:36] --- tlyu has joined
[21:33:11] <ggm> mw clarify WG chairs ability to manage doc eds. clear in 2418 they 'report' to chair but some wording implies one per WG. not that explicit. make it clear they select/train/replace them. (after help to reform)
[21:33:16] <hartmans> Is this presentation about a proposal or an IESG consensus? I missed the beginning.
[21:33:23] <ggm> mw if there is a problem, AD is kept as 2nd level mgt in the loop
[21:33:39] <anewton> there is a draft on it.
[21:33:53] <ggm> mw important WG chairs not be editors. very hard for people to judge their own creative output properly
[21:34:25] <ggm> mw sometimes more than 1 chair. is it ok if one is doc-ed other in chair role? needs discussion split feedback
[21:34:26] <ggm> mw sixth specific change
[21:34:36] <ggm> mw make wg chairs able to update charter milestones.
[21:34:43] --- lisaDusseault has joined
[21:34:54] <ggm> mw ad should be *aware* but wg chair can modify dates say if completed without AD approval. cannot add new, new work items,
[21:35:00] <ggm> mw still needs recharter process.
[21:35:03] <ggm> mw final specific
[21:35:32] <ggm> mw give wg chairs explicit authority/responsibility to manage ML. suspend posting privileges of disruptive posters.
[21:35:52] <anewton> room: applause
[21:35:52] <ggm> mw today requires IESG approval. wrong level. AD must be kept in loop (personel issue) but WG chair decision
[21:36:03] <ggm> mw WG chairs get more responsibility AND more work
[21:36:31] <ggm> mw hoping it won't mean they drown. drive delegation to eds, secretaries. depends on complexity of WG. chairs choice
[21:36:55] <ggm> mw think the plan gives WG chairs/groups more control over document process..
[21:37:09] <ggm> mw on one slide said '6-9 months to come out of IESG' shouldnt be like this, black box.
[21:37:20] <ggm> mw also will have seriousimpact. some wg chairs have to transit out of doc-ed role.
[21:37:40] <ggm> mw don't plan to do this jan1. fairly lengthy transition/training to bring new process online. get org smooth transition
[21:38:10] <ggm> mw accept there will be turnover. some will chose to stay in doc-ed role, choose other chairs
[21:38:17] <ggm> mw talk tomorrow what do you think?
[21:38:18] <ggm> mw steps.
[21:38:37] <ggm> mw changes to rfc2418. first draft out now.
[21:38:55] <ggm> mw enough feedback to make 2nd draft. can't publish again until after IETF. 2nd draft coming. comments solicited.
[21:39:13] <ggm> mw need to make changes to IESG charter. Harald has that. dont know how to change but its not an existing BCP or RFC
[21:39:31] <ggm> mw significant changes to IESG process and tools. today using ID tracker with state machine, process, based around AD sheparding
[21:39:32] <raeburn> what color dots should wg chairs choosing to be just doc editors get?
[21:39:52] <ggm> mw need to transit to WG chair centric process. process now around AD decision/actions, change to WG chair action/decision
[21:40:02] <ggm> mw training.
[21:40:28] <ggm> mw WG chairs, possibly doc-eds, secretariat (definitely) IETF populus
[21:40:30] <ggm> mw timeline
[21:40:31] --- mukesh77 has left: Replaced by new connection
[21:40:39] --- mukesh77 has joined
[21:41:02] --- Bill has joined
[21:41:06] <ggm> mw tentative. not whole project plan. 2418 update, rough consensus in IETF by Jan 04
[21:41:24] <ggm> mw Feb 04, one month later, resolve the last call issues, publish document
[21:41:39] <ggm> mw tools/procedure update, form planning group in the next few weeks
[21:41:42] <ggm> Nov 03 form group
[21:42:11] <ggm> mw need wg chairs, secretariat, to form/plan this activity. example of func differentiation. not just IESG get some other people
[21:42:27] <ggm> mw Determine updates required in Dec 03 including tools.
[21:42:36] <ggm> mw over Jan/Feb timeframe implement
[21:42:45] <ggm> mw so that in Feb/Mar (Seoul ietf) able to train,
[21:43:15] <ggm> mw period to next IETF, april/may start to transition WG. chairs, and AD's have to determine how and when. if closing down probably won't. in the middle of a lot of work may take longer.
[21:43:33] <ggm> mw hope is by summer IETF fully transitioned.
[21:43:34] <ggm> mw what next
[21:43:40] <ggm> mw does the community want this?
[21:44:01] <ggm> mw solutions@alvestrand.no for email
[21:44:14] <ggm> mw if want feedback now, please come and give it.
[21:44:22] <ggm> mw updates to 2418 start now
[21:44:26] <ggm> mw plan project.
[21:44:30] <ggm> [slides end] Questions?
[21:44:38] <ggm> mw Scott Bradner, wearing 3 hats.
[21:45:04] <ggm> sb put in draft touching on these things, suggested (from other) wg chairs/others on special ml for call on docs, and on phonecall. considered?
[21:45:21] <ggm> mw discussed, esp. chartering. logistical issues. planniing ctte could decide we want to do it, but then have to make logistics work
[21:45:39] --- argc has joined
[21:45:39] <ggm> ha if we can reach structure where more than 3min/doc actual discussion, fine thing to invite in,. dont have right now.
[21:45:44] --- shep has joined
[21:45:47] --- jis has joined
[21:45:49] --- sakai has left
[21:45:51] <ggm> ha going to declare lines closed after charlie perkins
[21:46:06] <ggm> sb not asking for critique. was it considered? ha yes. sb talk tomorrow
[21:46:26] <anewton> would this proposal take the replace the IESG work that the AD's have with appeals work from the wg members?
[21:46:35] <ggm> sb wearing head of 2418. proposing edit patch on 2418. file change this to that. many other things in 2418 up for tweaks suggested over years. without considering ANY other issues?
[21:47:24] <ggm> mw want to change typo mispelling IESG [laughs] mike in producing draft this way, focuc changes for specific purpose, pass in one action. somebody else wants to do them for other purposes, can consider in paralle, even fuse at same time but mike didn't want to do all of it now
[21:47:46] <ggm> sb as practical matter, hope to be involved in future as past ed. will be a doc, will want to clarify some things
[21:48:03] <ggm> sb third hat. no wg to iesg handoff. if thats the case, 2026 has to be updated, because its a requirement in there.
[21:48:05] <ggm> mw what words
[21:48:24] <ggm> sb to initiate the action of the IESG msg has to come to IESG from WG chair, condiditons,
[21:48:28] <ggm> mw still expect process
[21:48:41] <ggm> sb pop a level may need to change 2026 at same time. do not wish to discuss
[21:48:44] <ggm> mw possible yes
[21:48:54] <ggm> ?? draft?
[21:49:03] <ggm> mw gives name of draft
[21:49:16] <ggm> [draft coming on screen will enter]
[21:49:28] <ggm> ??2 shock treatment for change. slower? more time?
[21:49:31] <raeburn> draft-wasserman-rfc2418-update-00.txt
[21:49:32] <anewton> I agree
[21:49:43] <ggm> ??could do this slower. requires tool changes.
[21:49:52] --- lha has left: Logged out
[21:49:54] <ggm> mw wont be able to know which things can happen more quick until planning.
[21:50:10] <ggm> mw is tool planned to let WG chairs manage own milestones. dont know if ready before. part of transit plan might be to
[21:50:17] <ggm> make all wg do x or then y and x and y etc
[21:50:21] --- mukesh77 has left: Replaced by new connection
[21:50:27] <ggm> JOhn Schnitzlien
[21:50:55] --- lha has joined
[21:51:18] <hartmans> Wait, WG chairs should not typically be a technology advocate.
[21:51:20] <ggm> jsc new more responsible WG chairs. must have missed the accountability bit. the selection process bit. right now, to paraphrase the WG chair is the advocate of a tech/idea/analysis. appropriate for doc editor how would this change? nomcom process? selection and rep[lacement? give this power, I missed accountability
[21:51:28] <ggm> mw no proposal to change how currently selected.
[21:51:33] --- mukesh77 has joined
[21:51:35] <ggm> jc answers clarification but leaves issues open
[21:51:39] <ggm> Dave Crocker 3 qs
[21:51:51] <ggm> dc one month only to review changes and reach consensus about this many?
[21:52:02] <ggm> mw maybe it will take longer. not going to declare month up and consensus. if take longer ok
[21:52:14] <ggm> dc 2 all of these changes moving stuff frrom AD what do AD do.
[21:52:17] --- sakai has joined
[21:52:19] <ggm> mw they go home [laugh]
[21:52:35] --- lha has left: Disconnected
[21:52:50] <ggm> mw they should focus on two things. scope of IETF as whole, charter new work, recharter for new milestones. doc approval still stays with IESG. stds should stay there
[21:53:01] <ggm> dc AD are tech mgr, process mgt to WG chairs.
[21:53:06] <ggm> ha except in selecting wg chairs
[21:53:08] --- tlyu has left: Lost connection
[21:53:12] <ggm> dc understand model now thanks.
[21:53:32] <hartmans> I think dc's summary is wrong. The WG chairs seem to still have technical review responsibility under this proposal.
[21:53:41] <ggm> dc 3 last one. moves stuff from AD to WG. interesting auth is not with WG or AD. is with WG. evolution of auth whcih is substantial and is not clear. moves from WG to chair.
[21:53:49] <ggm> mw clarified Q. don't understand
[21:53:54] <ggm> dc clear to people makeing proposal?
[21:53:57] <ggm> mw do this tomorrow.
[21:54:07] <ggm> ha move discussion to tomorrow. running over time. please keep to point
[21:54:11] <anewton> I didn't understand that either.
[21:54:17] <ggm> ??3 how close to full time job be?
[21:54:38] <leslie+harald> ?? is Ed jusko(???)
[21:54:42] <ggm> mw what do we estimate wg chair effort? impossible to say. small group low, ipv6wg is high,. not across board answer
[21:54:59] <ggm> [if they don't say, and I don't recognize voice what can I do? -ggm]
[21:55:04] <ggm> mw not even halftime job for some people
[21:55:09] <ggm> Mark Crispin
[21:55:25] <leslie+harald> ggm: just trying to help fill in the blanks...
[21:55:25] <ggm> mc maybe in doc. anything where you forsee how current system of checks/balances between WG/AD/IESG since this is
[21:55:46] <ggm> mc being thrown out, how a new system of checks/balances will be done, or seen to be done, prevent abuses? anything in there?
[21:56:11] <ggm> mw nothing today. response to problem statement saying we don't have any now. idea is to make them stronger, make them adv for doc through process. big issue in the past
[21:56:29] <ggm> mc but in one case talk efficienct, in the other case excessive efficiency. how to prevent bad things.
[21:56:42] <ggm> mc how would future problems created by this, and how addressed? any statement?
[21:56:51] <ggm> mw no. only doc written is text update
[21:56:59] <ggm> Bob Hinden
[21:57:08] <ggm> bh like idea. more work and responsibility
[21:57:43] <ggm> bh concerned they hve to resolve AD comments. can send mail, can talk, no auth to resolve deadlock. more work needed on proposal. can't hand it all off, need AD to make it happen if a problem
[21:57:53] <ggm> mw sheparding AD has no authority. have to satisfy concerns
[21:58:00] <ggm> [floor comment not clarifying Q]
[21:58:08] <ggm> ha iesg job
[21:58:12] <ggm> bh needs more work
[21:58:21] --- tlyu has joined
[21:58:28] <ggm> jim why not on poised?
[21:58:32] <ggm> ha poised is closed.
[21:58:36] <ggm> jim legally and more
[21:58:47] <ggm> ha will not speak more to poised. sorrry POISED.
[21:58:51] <ggm> ha now Alex, waiting for some time
[21:59:03] --- rjs3 has joined
[21:59:34] --- lha has joined
[21:59:54] <anewton> alex zinin: introduces ietf cross functional review
[22:00:03] --- rajid has left: Disconnected
[22:00:12] --- maho has left
[22:00:21] <anewton> az: cross-functional review - cross area
[22:00:25] <mukesh77> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zinin-early-review-00.txt
[22:00:32] <anewton> az: core value of the ietf
[22:00:44] <anewton> az: keep it as we move through the change process
[22:01:08] <anewton> az: iesg review happens late in the process
[22:01:25] <anewton> az: improve this by triggering iesg review earlier in the process, but won't scale
[22:01:43] <anewton> az: involved expert groups are not widely known
[22:01:59] <anewton> az: no process support for pre-iesg review
[22:02:23] <anewton> az: what have we been doing
[22:02:49] <anewton> az: cross area technical advisors, early reviews by directorates and "doctor" groups
[22:03:23] <anewton> az: informal early AD review, ad hoc expert reviews, cross wg discussions, pilot early review (tried for dccp)
[22:03:32] <anewton> az: encourage more community review
[22:03:39] <anewton> az: "what we need" slide
[22:03:50] --- resnick has joined
[22:04:21] <anewton> az: structrued review - early, significant, consistent, scalable
[22:04:44] <anewton> az: "why do we need this" slide
[22:05:15] --- resnick has left: Disconnected
[22:05:17] <anewton> az: improve doc quality, decrease load on AD and IESG, speed the process, minimize late surprizes
[22:05:28] <anewton> az: "how should we do this" slide
[22:06:01] <anewton> az: IESG and community has not made a decision
[22:06:17] <anewton> az: "proposal 1: draft-iesg-hardie-outline" slide
[22:06:24] --- dblacka has left
[22:06:45] <anewton> az: drinks water
[22:06:51] --- tlyu has left: Lost connection
[22:07:40] <Joseph (jishac)> progressing to color commentary
[22:07:42] <anewton> az: area boards take load off of ads
[22:08:10] --- loughney has joined
[22:08:15] <anewton> az: slide "proposal 2: draft-iesg-alvestrand-twolevel"
[22:08:17] --- tlyu has joined
[22:08:49] <anewton> az: review team approves docs from that area... insures cross functional review... iesg transforms into leadership that does not approve docs
[22:09:04] <anewton> az: iesg serves as backstop to help decide consensus
[22:09:22] <anewton> az: slide 'proposal 3: draft-zinin-early-review"
[22:09:39] <anewton> az: directorates and "doctor" teams
[22:09:51] <anewton> az: wg chairs send note to teams...
[22:09:58] --- maho has joined
[22:10:03] --- loughney has left
[22:11:13] <anewton> az: slide "ow we get there"
[22:11:58] <anewton> az: certain areas already have these teams
[22:12:17] <anewton> az: done
[22:12:31] <anewton> I must leave. My battery is going dead!
[22:12:37] --- anewton has left
[22:12:41] --- maho has left: Disconnected
[22:13:00] --- hildjj has left: Disconnected
[22:13:46] <bert> james polk: not acking burden of security area.
[22:13:48] <hartmans> sob: The optimistic interpretation is that the discussion will not take 2 IETF periods
[22:14:20] <bert> jp: don't know if apps person is qualified to critique security
[22:14:38] <bert> az: each review team would have a security team
[22:14:48] <leslie+harald> speaking as an apps person... it's not a question of an apps person nitpicking security holes... but it would be a GOOD idea to have some apps review of, say (ab)use of identifiers....
[22:14:52] <leslie+harald> (in non-apps docs)
[22:14:52] <bert> jp: they would still have to do review for the other areas
[22:15:24] <bert> az: scalability is one of the major concerns
[22:15:39] <bert> malinda shore: is iesg gonna making the decision?
[22:15:49] <bert> az: decision by ietf concensus
[22:16:24] <bert> hta: all of these proposals include what we are proposing, documenting it, and discussing it with community and reaching a concensus
[22:16:37] --- mukesh77 has left
[22:16:45] <bert> hta: would like to aske some questions, but will be doing that tomorrow
[22:16:59] --- tlyu has left: Disconnected
[22:17:08] <bert> hta: review of ietf mission statement idea
[22:17:29] <bert> hta: ietf procedure questions... is functional differentiation reasonable?
[22:17:48] <bert> hta: wg chair questions.. is this a sensible approach
[22:18:18] <bert> hta: document review questions
[22:18:46] <bert> hta: what have we missed? will ask these questions tomorrow
[22:18:56] <bert> hta: for tonight, thanks for coming
[22:19:01] --- gih has left
[22:19:08] <bert> hta: discussion will be continued tomorrow and in all the jabber rooms
[22:19:09] --- lha has left
[22:19:09] --- hartmans has left
[22:19:13] <bert> room: applause
[22:19:21] --- sakai has left
[22:19:32] --- leslie+harald has left
[22:19:36] --- raeburn has left
[22:19:45] --- warlord has left
[22:19:46] --- thatoneguy has left
[22:19:55] --- Bill has left
[22:20:00] --- jis has left
[22:20:15] --- tonyhansen has left
[22:20:20] --- lisaDusseault has left
[22:20:22] --- Joseph (jishac) has left
[22:21:09] --- yone has left
[22:21:23] --- ggm has left
[22:21:26] --- stpeter has left
[22:21:43] --- stpeter has joined
[22:21:57] <stpeter> bert: tghanks for scribing
[22:22:04] --- rjs3 has left
[22:22:25] --- stpeter has left
[22:22:45] --- pgm has left
[22:23:55] --- shep has left
[22:25:31] --- argc has left
[22:29:33] --- bert has left: Disconnected
[22:30:29] --- mrose has left
[22:32:50] --- falk has left: Disconnected
[22:44:10] --- michael has joined
[22:50:33] --- michael has left
[23:25:24] --- tytso has left
[23:39:57] --- LOGGING STARTED