[07:03:12] --- LOGGING STARTED
[07:05:00] --- LOGGING STARTED
[07:07:59] --- LOGGING STARTED
[07:09:20] --- LOGGING STARTED
[07:11:30] --- LOGGING STARTED
[07:31:23] --- falk has joined
[07:34:22] --- falk has left
[08:45:50] --- brabson has joined
[08:45:58] --- brabson has left
[09:18:57] --- bert has joined
[09:19:16] --- bert has left
[14:42:35] --- Milele has joined
[14:43:19] --- Milele has left
[14:44:45] --- stpeter has joined
[14:48:15] --- stpeter has left
[16:59:40] --- javier has joined
[16:59:46] --- javier has left
[17:07:45] --- Bill has joined
[17:09:42] --- Bill has left
[18:53:36] --- rjs3 has joined
[19:12:00] --- eblanton has joined
[19:12:47] --- mellon has joined
[19:13:36] --- anewton has joined
[19:23:26] --- eblanton has left: Disconnected
[19:23:35] --- ggm has joined
[19:23:57] <ggm> [biff dinga dinga dinga dinga bif bif bam bif dinga dinga]
[19:24:06] --- eblanton has joined
[19:24:15] <mellon> biff pow biff biff socka wocka socka wocka!
[19:24:40] <ggm> [bif bop bam bama bama bama swhiwsh swhiwsh]
[19:25:00] <ggm> [shave and a hair cut two bits **2]
[19:25:06] <rjs3> <babababa bom bom babababa bom bom>
[19:25:47] <ggm> [-----.-----.-....-.----.-....-.----.-....-.----.-....-.]
[19:27:10] --- ohm has joined
[19:27:27] --- orange has joined
[19:27:55] <anewton> anybody else hear that noise?
[19:28:50] <rjs3> its all in your head
[19:29:12] <anewton> No, its all NEXT TO my head!
[19:30:07] --- leg has joined
[19:31:16] <rjs3> leslie is introducing the session
[19:31:17] <ggm> leslie daigle open mike, open arch discussion
[19:31:44] <ggm> ld bernard will give overview of 'insecurities at the edge'
[19:32:48] <ggm> http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/IAB/
[19:32:54] <eblanton> can anyone make a non-ppt version of these slides?
[19:32:54] --- hta has joined
[19:33:04] --- mrose has joined
[19:33:13] --- stpeter has joined
[19:33:16] <ggm> acks to DCrocker, Vern Paxson, Mark Handley. for data/materials
[19:33:19] --- jhutz has joined
[19:33:23] <ggm> acks to ASRG.
[19:33:36] --- hildjj has joined
[19:35:03] <ggm> bh fine print: we don't have all the knowledge here. stimulate discussions. not only about spam/virii/worms. think broadly. Q's relate to thinks we can affect. what can IETF do if anything. what additional Q's to ask. many issues outside scope. focus on technical issues, IETF can help solve. new work we can do here. limited time. 45min spend much on Qs and things to find out. please abstain from solutions presentations at mike. new areas of explore could be ok
[19:35:14] <ggm> bh recent headline from Mark Handley From London FT.
[19:35:19] --- thatoneguy has joined
[19:35:23] <ggm> bh 'crime gangs extort money with hacking threat'
[19:35:29] --- javier has joined
[19:35:48] <ggm> bh evidence of intnl extortion racket using DDOS based in e. europe. now from experiment to real life organized crime
[19:36:08] <ggm> bh data is all anecdotal. not defnitive.
[19:36:57] --- falk has joined
[19:37:00] --- jmcollis has joined
[19:37:10] <ggm> bh from epidemialogical perspective, large host pop. globally connected, rising infection rate. all these together make for explosive spread of contagion. as result, virus forms grow at alarming rate. reservoir of unprotected systems == host pop.
[19:37:21] <ggm> bh [slide of scan]
[19:37:34] <ggm> bh each line is identified virus. this scan was done on unattended system
[19:37:42] <ggm> bh from time of scan 173 virii identified in 17min
[19:37:42] --- leslie has joined
[19:38:16] <ggm> bh unprotected/unattended left to collect viruses, not intentionally. up for a period of years. no more than 3 [Q from floor not at mike]
[19:38:53] <ggm> bh slide of data from Vern of prevalence of Blaster. y axis is # of hosts sending to port (ok lets say distinct IPs)
[19:39:07] <ggm> bh is essentially honeypot, measured over time. (x is time)
[19:39:28] <ggm> bh slide shows rise of blaster in days in 2003. things to notice
[19:40:16] <ggm> bh see explosive rise at 45 days, then variance around basicly obscene infection rate, irrespective of the ones being fixed. this is frightening. look at numbers. integrate under curve, have over 1000000 hosts.
[19:40:36] --- Bill has joined
[19:40:57] <ggm> bh Vern told me that its not all the same host. not a repeat probe from the same host. shows either very wide scan over entire internet, or changing IP. lots to investigate. theory is that its the unattended/unmanaged/unprotected hosts == reservoir for virus
[19:41:10] <ggm> diff between peaks/avg., if able to cure, would expect diff to be substantial but it isn't.
[19:41:29] <ggm> bh graph of smal volume per day since 1997. not difnitive but interesting.
[19:42:11] <ggm> bh trend line pre-sobig, relatively normal. then sobig == 2mags of normal, then sinks back but rate changes markedly thereafter. is this permanent change of trendline or will it sink back? very worrysome if it continues. opinions differ on what this is
[19:42:18] <stpeter> note the scale on that graph
[19:42:30] <ggm> what implications for internet arch?
[19:42:43] <ggm> bh 'end isn't neccessarily trustabl;e'
[19:43:11] <ggm> bh moving from what you know/have to what you are. composting of mechanisms like auth+whitelist [will speak to later]
[19:43:28] <ggm> bh weak auth mechs may be better than expensive good ones, not implemented
[19:43:43] <ggm> bh adversary may not have a lot of computational power.
[19:43:47] --- Lisa has joined
[19:44:13] <ggm> bh magnitude 2orders above baseline, middle has to take action to protect end and middle
[19:44:31] <ggm> bh slide from crocker on points of control see the graphs
[19:44:38] <ggm> [ggm has anybody made PDF for instance? ]
[19:45:05] --- sakai has joined
[19:45:35] <ggm> bh what new work is needed?
[19:45:57] <ggm> bh Q to pose, time to think about 1-2 more wg in this area? existing technologies mature to enter IETF process, that would help? other techs in legal/forensic which could help?
[19:46:09] <ggm> bh research stuff? other than merely chartering WG?
[19:46:30] --- mukesh77 has joined
[19:46:31] <ggm> bh potential activities
[19:46:50] <ggm> bh study range of issues. accountability. talked about that stuff a bit.
[19:47:04] <ggm> bh aspects of detection etc
[19:47:25] <ggm> bh talked about synergy between whitelist and accountability technology
[19:47:38] <ggm> bh the joke is that the attackers don't have to go through the IETF [laughter]
[19:47:53] <ggm> bh defenders aren't organized as distributed techs the same way.
[19:48:27] <ggm> bh epidemiology is v important. need standardized abuse reports, white/blacklists interchange. post hoc examination as important as dealing with it.
[19:49:10] <ggm> bh look at how CDC responds to epedemic
[19:49:23] <ggm> bh exaluating proposals
[19:49:36] <ggm> bh goal is to make impact on very important problem
[19:49:51] --- resnick has joined
[19:50:09] <ggm> bh things easy to adopt, not so great longterm, can be ok, hard to adopt but great longterm benefit. what we dont want is hard to adopt, only short term benefit.
[19:50:40] <ggm> bh look at the technology. attackers adapting/learning at frightening rate. where will they be in 5 years, as well as where will we be? v important.
[19:51:00] <ggm> bh usual metrics of cost/reliability testing.
[19:51:05] <ggm> bh open to discussion
[19:51:21] <ggm> Kieth Moore
[19:52:17] <ggm> KM conditions for viral spread. didn't read in detail, one thing not listed, what the term is, lack of diversity genetic diversity being affected.
[19:52:32] --- mukesh77 has left
[19:52:40] --- dcrocker has joined
[19:52:46] --- thatoneguy has left
[19:52:57] --- mukesh77 has joined
[19:53:00] <ggm> KM vendors fail to implement even easy checks in standards, to prevent obvious vulns, hard to see what IETF can do to solve problem. cited on ML, MIME prohib against executing arb. content, adopted by microsoft-but-i-didn't-say-that and thats one of the major transmission vectors
[19:53:06] <ggm> KM now see spam in viruses
[19:53:09] --- thatoneguy has joined
[19:53:53] <ggm> KM means, wont solve spam problem until MS retrospectively cured back to '95. things IETF can do to solve that weak but deployable, trace virus propagation back.
[19:54:04] <ggm> KM ISP didn't solve problem. OS vendor did. has to fix at source
[19:54:11] <ggm> Paul Hoffman
[19:54:21] <ggm> PH will jump on slide of graph SPAM per day
[19:54:30] <ggm> PH IETF can do, is terminology, propagate out to press.
[19:54:44] <ggm> PH I believe chart is wrong. vol per day, that spike looks like sobig
[19:54:55] <ggm> PH within 10% are seeing virus as spam vectors, but that is not what we see here
[19:55:31] <ggm> PH spam is 'mail I don't want' not viruses. (aside about wanting virus/spam) but if we go after the wrong things, wont help anybody, just get nailed. need terminology
[19:55:54] <ggm> Michael Richardson
[19:56:08] <ggm> MR what can the IETF do? Did do something, decade ago, dtrt, can repeat it again.
[19:56:28] <ggm> MR took a long time to get the text right. evolutionary biology, lack of genetic diversity,. evolution will take care of this problem
[19:56:37] <ggm> BA please focus on what IETF should do. do you have suggestions?
[19:57:06] <ggm> MR did we do the wrong thing in the past? do something diferent? publish MIME was wrong? if we did, dispite all prohibitions, didn't matter, Q is, what could we have done different, should we do it now?
[19:57:16] <ggm> MR have to have sense of how we got here.
[19:57:22] <ggm> BA suggesting more investigation of causes
[19:57:59] <ggm> Dude1? missing this. problem more general
[19:58:16] <Lisa> Dude1 is Eric Rescorla
[19:58:31] <ggm> Eric Rescolra what makes spam easy, has arch easy for you to anonymously contact, liked it that way, consider if that is killing us
[19:58:39] <ggm> LD thanks eric. want to jump in
[19:59:07] <ggm> LD framed it very well. challenges, here putting this together was putting pres'n together without devolving into 'solve spam' discussion.
[19:59:07] --- orange has left: Disconnected
[19:59:10] <thatoneguy> It's a little late, but here is a pdf version of the slides (via OpenOffice) http://www.yoshinet.net/misc
[19:59:18] <ggm> LD thought interesting to look at upper level problems
[19:59:42] <ggm> Dude2.
[20:00:11] <ggm> Dude2 put IP addrs of mail relays in given domain. small thing, helps spread of sobig
[20:00:46] <Lisa> Dude2 is Ted
[20:00:46] --- resnick has left: Disconnected
[20:00:52] <ggm> Dude2. spreads by pretending to be relay. if cut off just large mail providers implemented, cut off 90% like *that* why not done?
[20:00:52] <ggm> Dude2? maybe bad Q.
[20:01:06] <ggm> LD reframe Q. not talking about how to solve? suggesting model moving forward is better reverse ID of parties communicating
[20:01:14] <ggm> Dude2 I was talking about virus prob. spreads this way but yes
[20:01:35] <ggm> Dude2 no killer soln. lots of little things, spread over time, pay attention,
[20:01:48] <ggm> BA hear point. don't bet on one thing. diversity of approaches. second GO FOR IT
[20:01:53] <ggm> Bob Hinden
[20:02:00] <ggm> BH haven't seen anything yet.
[20:02:07] --- sleinen has joined
[20:02:43] <ggm> BH not just existing base, building lots of always on, always reachable. unless we start re0thing model, have in mind give dev ability to control packets, still reachable but more control or if getting bad can auto drop, need to rethink. going to get worse
[20:02:54] <ggm> ALan De?
[20:02:58] <ggm> AD member of ASRG
[20:03:33] <ggm> AD paper written recently, have domain ballpark million spams/day. want to say something stupid,spam,. viri not the problem, the problem is nobody notices. like the common cold, nobody notices
[20:04:01] <ggm> AD with pneumonia, 'they kill peopel' and its notices. until the effect is significant on people as opposed to network admin [laughter] ,... the unwashed masses,
[20:04:14] <ggm> AD more than just common cold level, nobody going to do it.
[20:04:18] <ggm> BA what do you recommend?
[20:04:46] <ggm> AD do something? [laughter] flamewars on ASRG less than instructive. lots of opposition to doing anything. need to fight this. secure the network has costs, people are opposed to taking on costs.
[20:04:50] <ggm> AD answer is too bad
[20:05:02] <ggm> Spencer Dawkins
[20:05:31] <ggm> SD walk me through something leslie, thing with *.com etc. had attention in press, did we learn anything from that, we can use eg 'MIME was thought about'
[20:05:45] --- orange has joined
[20:05:48] <ggm> SD use the tools we have. have some press awareness of things we've been saying for a while can w euse them?
[20:05:59] --- Lisa has left: Disconnected
[20:05:59] <ggm> LD not trying to run tech linkages, but because we had press coverage, can we use tha?
[20:06:18] <ggm> SD somebody not in the room paid attention, could we make somebody not in the room pay attention to THIS issue?
[20:06:42] <ggm> LD ask my employer to turn it back on [laughter] but I will refrain [more laughter] NO. point made by previous spkr. thing about this, it touched millions, that caused attention
[20:06:44] --- Milele has joined
[20:07:26] <ggm> LD want to get specific attention, going to happen. had eps. of that, AT&T for instance, took action, got into press. can't generate
[20:07:26] <ggm> BA with headlines like this we are close
[20:07:39] <ggm> Dude4 people using biological analogues, but its really about microeconomics
[20:08:03] <ggm> Dude4 when people start connections, protos, what does it cost to responder to be part of somebody else's initiation, what does it cost initiator? pay more attention to cost
[20:08:06] <Milele> Dude4 is Pekka Savola ...
[20:08:09] <ggm> Dude4
[20:08:15] <ggm> BAmore focus on dial service
[20:08:21] <ggm> LD cut lines where they are now.
[20:08:25] <mukesh77> Dude4 is Pekka Nikander
[20:08:32] <ggm> BA cycle new speakers then KM aghain
[20:08:32] <mukesh77> not Pekka Savola..
[20:08:32] <Milele> Oops
[20:08:37] --- Joseph has joined
[20:08:39] <ggm> Dude5 PLEASE SAY NAME SLOWER DUDE
[20:08:45] <ggm> dude5 dunno what problem is.
[20:08:56] <ggm> dude5 number of different problems different solutions
[20:09:04] <falk> speaker: John Wroclawski
[20:09:05] <ggm> dude5 some suggested in line already, different costs, attacks
[20:09:11] <ggm> dude5 taxonomy
[20:09:21] <ggm> BA characterization problem?
[20:09:30] <ggm> JW yes, societal not just IESG
[20:10:05] <ggm> Tom ? one wise person privieledged to work with, always mgt solns to tech probs not alwways tech solns to mgt problems. may not be technical problem, best defence may be in legal/economic social engineering terms
[20:10:23] <ggm> Tom think wisely, initiate legal and other appropriate action.
[20:10:30] <ggm> BA is there something we can do to assist legal/economic folk
[20:10:52] <ggm> Tom I'm at sociology/psych end. but obvious we suffer the cost, perps have low cost to do it,. could fix or point that out.
[20:11:12] <ggm> Dave Crocker
[20:11:14] --- argc has joined
[20:11:50] --- hardie has joined
[20:11:53] <ggm> DC like to underscore what JW and ? said. wide range of problems. accountable spammers and rogue spammers. accountable want money, rogues less clear, need to deal with them the sam way as viri writers
[20:12:11] <ggm> DC live in different threat world. small homogeneous town to NY City. can live in new world but have to adjust
[20:12:43] <hardie> Ted Lemon, to be exact
[20:12:49] <ggm> DC third comment Geoff Huston characterized it as ;solution rich. figuring out useful ones is the hard part. need to look at efficacy/expense, ease to route around
[20:12:55] <ggm> Itojun
[20:13:01] <ggm> I two things lacking.
[20:13:10] <ggm> I first one is consideration to ease of use in security technologies
[20:13:17] <ggm> I lots of stuff, IPSEC, SSH etc
[20:13:25] <ggm> I but deployment of this is very difficult
[20:13:33] <ggm> I for example IPSEC deployment limited to VPN used
[20:13:44] <ggm> I when we design security proto/mechanism need to think about how to make it
[20:13:54] --- stpeter has left
[20:13:54] <ggm> I useable to gen public/people. make it easy to use
[20:14:17] <ggm> I in many cases in WG, lots of security comment would be great, proto secure, but difficult to use proto. my first comment
[20:14:20] <ggm> I second comment.
[20:14:35] <ggm> I do not have good infrastructure for auth keys. have PGP keyserve. some CA
[20:14:53] <ggm> I however because of diffuculty
[20:14:57] <ggm> [sorry missed it]
[20:15:18] <ggm> Dude 6 spam and virus all mail did not want to receive. subject of definition
[20:15:37] <ggm> Dude6 better definition than tying spam to commercial nature of offers. can be non-comm, can be political religious crackpot
[20:16:19] <ggm> Dude6 workable as means preventing spam from reaching mailboxes, or compensating us once reached. Have wonderful tech tools allow us to accept authenticated mail from people we know. mail from strangers. important to be able to accept
[20:16:40] <ggm> Dude6 what if we had every time, stranger want to deliver, have to post bond?
[20:16:45] <ggm> BA isn't this whitelist?
[20:17:00] <ggm> Dude6 is already known people. can accept mail. everyone else can deposit $1.
[20:17:13] <hildjj> READING!
[20:17:18] <ggm> dude6 once presented, can take no action, delete, compensated for time. [laughter]
[20:17:22] --- sleinen has left
[20:17:27] --- stpeter has joined
[20:17:49] <ggm> dude6
[20:17:49] <ggm> BA thankyou
[20:17:49] <ggm> Illiuch Van Beijum
[20:18:13] <ggm> ivb [missed it
[20:18:13] <ggm> ]
[20:18:13] <ggm> BA suggesting IETF look at...
[20:18:21] <ggm> ivb host keep packets clearly don't want to have. would be useful to have mech to shuty up host, not easy, but should be looked at
[20:18:22] --- sleinen has joined
[20:18:23] <ggm> BA thankyou
[20:18:25] <ggm> KM
[20:18:52] <ggm> for various reasoons, not just attack/security, greater need for hosts to cooperate on kind of traffic they send.
[20:19:57] <anewton> Rich Draves: brief addendum
[20:20:14] <anewton> rd: Randy Bush has resigned O&M AD spot. Seeking nominations
[20:20:19] --- leslie has left: Lost connection
[20:20:35] <anewton> rd: extending period for nominations until Dec. 1. and all the others through Monday, the 17th
[20:20:44] <anewton> rd: mail to ietf-announce tomorrow
[20:21:11] <ggm> .
[20:21:13] <anewton> hta: technical staff asked for a slide to be displayed
[20:21:19] <anewton> hta: Bret?
[20:21:31] <anewton> Bret: when there isn't a host, I do coordiante
[20:21:33] <hardie> Thorsen
[20:21:47] <anewton> room: applause
[20:21:56] <anewton> bt: volunteers stand up
[20:21:59] <anewton> room: applause
[20:22:35] <anewton> bt: things that make easier are feedback free of expletives
[20:22:50] <anewton> bt: more machines had adhoc set
[20:22:59] <anewton> bt: more of these OS's are trying to be friendlier
[20:23:10] <anewton> bt: machines shouldn't be friendly, they should just work
[20:23:29] <anewton> bt: a lot of infected machines
[20:23:41] <anewton> bt: created the penalty box
[20:23:54] <anewton> bt: we routed them to nowhere
[20:24:21] <anewton> bt: had a couple of 2megabit streams up
[20:24:25] --- pgmillard has joined
[20:24:38] <anewton> bt: nice to have the author of the spec around to tell how to fix things
[20:24:51] <anewton> bt: got help fixing IOS problem today
[20:25:22] <anewton> bt: acted on useful stuff on the list
[20:25:39] <anewton> bt: if you are an RF wizard, please help
[20:25:55] <anewton> bt: if everybody comes to the next IETF using 802.11a, it would help
[20:26:01] <anewton> room: laughter and applause
[20:26:09] <anewton> hta: now for the excitement
[20:26:38] <anewton> hta: you have had 24 hours to think about the presentations from yesterday
[20:26:59] <anewton> hta: recapitulating
[20:27:26] <anewton> hta: gives history of being told things are broken
[20:27:56] <anewton> hta: last night we presented a proposal for doing something (as we heard was wanted in Vienna).
[20:28:09] <anewton> hta: we may have been a little anxious
[20:28:21] <anewton> hta: scheduling may have been aggressive
[20:28:27] <anewton> hta: you may be right?
[20:28:34] <anewton> Are the slides available anywhere?
[20:28:52] <anewton> hta: told by several people that presentation was bad
[20:29:00] <anewton> hta: time for feedback...
[20:29:03] --- yone has joined
[20:29:28] <anewton> hta: timelines are restricted by two things: what the community wants and the partners outside the IETF
[20:29:49] <anewton> hta: we are an open org. If we surprize you, we messed up.
[20:30:01] <anewton> hta: need to know what to do next
[20:30:11] <ggm> [not at the same URL as last nights set -ggm]
[20:30:12] --- falk has left: Disconnected
[20:30:22] --- falk has joined
[20:30:25] <anewton> hta: leslie?
[20:30:40] <anewton> lld: the plan was to have the iesg up followed by the iab
[20:30:52] <anewton> lld: therefore, there will be a time limit on the first to get to the second
[20:30:59] <anewton> lld: who do you want to yell at first?
[20:31:08] <anewton> lld: iesg first?
[20:31:15] <anewton> lld: iesg second?
[20:31:21] <anewton> lld: go to bar?
[20:31:24] <anewton> room: strong hum
[20:31:35] <anewton> bob hinden: why don't you all go up
[20:31:43] <anewton> lld: not enough seats, but we'll figure it out
[20:31:51] <anewton> iesg and iab rush the stage
[20:31:51] --- ggm has left
[20:32:40] <anewton> ted hardie: please thank Randy Bush for many years of service
[20:32:45] <anewton> room: loud applause
[20:33:39] <anewton> hta: asks iab to introduce themselves
[20:33:49] <anewton> iab introduces itself
[20:34:19] <anewton> hta: introduces iesg
[20:34:24] <anewton> iesg introduces itself
[20:34:43] --- gih has joined
[20:35:00] <anewton> hta: people missing: Bert, Margarret, and Russ
[20:35:10] <anewton> ted: and Ned Freed
[20:35:50] <anewton> hta: have a list of questions based on last nights presentation and will ask you to speak to them first
[20:36:29] <anewton> hta: ietf mission: primarily a standards organization
[20:36:37] <anewton> hta: what does it mean?
[20:36:57] <anewton> hta: procedure questions, functional differentiation?
[20:37:19] <anewton> hta: wg chair questions. do we have it right?
[20:37:33] <anewton> hta: will the right people be available as wg chairs
[20:37:33] --- Joseph has left: Disconnected
[20:37:52] <anewton> hta: discusses misinterpretation of time needed for a wg chair
[20:38:23] <anewton> hta: this proposal will increase the amount of work
[20:38:36] <anewton> hta: but it won't be huge time
[20:38:52] <anewton> hta: docuement review: obvious we need more discussion
[20:39:00] <anewton> hta: what did we miss? mike is open
[20:39:09] <anewton> melinda shore: those are the wrong questions
[20:39:28] <anewton> ms: in vienna there was not consensus to kick this over to the iesg
[20:39:36] <anewton> ms: we have a problem around decision making
[20:39:59] <anewton> ms: it isn't that we need the iesg to identify solutions, we need them to make the decsions
[20:40:05] <anewton> ms: the process is not particularly open
[20:40:10] --- hardie has left: Disconnected
[20:40:17] <anewton> ms: references newtrk bof
[20:40:26] <anewton> ms: we don't need wg to be open
[20:40:45] <anewton> ms: need more collaboration
[20:40:53] <anewton> ms: how are we gonna make decisions ultimately
[20:41:04] <anewton> ms: doubt ability to come to consensus
[20:41:23] --- ggm has joined
[20:41:25] <anewton> ms: I can live with a majority decision instead of a consensus decision as long as it is open
[20:41:35] <anewton> ms: last ngith felt it was being delivered, not discussed
[20:41:46] <anewton> ms: still have the feeling with tonight's forum
[20:41:56] <anewton> hta: that is why I didn't start off with structured questions
[20:42:12] <anewton> charles perkins: after seeing presentations last night, I thought it was surprizingly good
[20:42:39] <anewton> cp: people think this is good (change in role of chairs)
[20:42:43] --- Joseph (jishac) has joined
[20:42:59] <anewton> cp: suggest one thing: mention sometimes IESG decisions seem to be arbitrary and not well documented
[20:43:13] <anewton> cp: need more documentation to support some of the decisions that have been take
[20:43:33] <anewton> cp: with more authority for chairs, this will just increase the need for documentation
[20:43:45] <anewton> cp: makes example about key dist for mobile IP
[20:44:26] <anewton> cp: Doc published by Russ was much better than random comment from IESG in response to draft
[20:44:44] <anewton> hta: Spence Dawkins is doing scribing for this session
[20:44:55] <anewton> hta: would ask people to try to be brief if possible
[20:45:12] <anewton> steve bellovin: ID tracker does show what ad says
[20:45:29] <anewton> Joel Halprin: no matter what process you use, people will give you grief
[20:45:54] <anewton> jh: Margaret's doc is good. Please take a pass over it and send it out for IETF last call and try to make it happen
[20:46:13] <anewton> jh: Have edu team tell iesg how to review for quality
[20:46:25] <anewton> jh: it isn't whole answer, but really good step
[20:46:50] <anewton> david perkins: the meanings of words change over time: such as the term "standards"
[20:47:10] <anewton> dp: standards bodies take technology and codify it, but I see little of that
[20:47:29] <anewton> Susan Hares: IETF is based on technical excellence.
[20:47:53] <anewton> sh: it is really important that the trust it takes is kept
[20:48:14] <anewton> sh: draws distinction between corporate based std bodies
[20:48:35] <anewton> sh: Many human being changes proposed will require a human flag day
[20:48:46] <anewton> sh: take into account speed of humans to adapt
[20:48:47] --- warlord has joined
[20:49:01] <anewton> sh: proud of nsfnet for its people
[20:49:19] <anewton> sh: the power is in the poeple
[20:49:33] <anewton> sh: it takes a long time to build colaboration, short time to shoot it
[20:49:35] --- raeburn has joined
[20:49:40] --- hartmans has joined
[20:49:46] <anewton> sh: don't agree with the wg chair proposal is good.
[20:50:03] <anewton> sh: it would make me ask who wants to be wg chair
[20:50:18] <anewton> sh: cross colaboration - consider the people part of it. it helps to know the people
[20:50:28] <anewton> sh: wg chairs should get together for more beer
[20:50:53] <anewton> alex: we have been discussing this within the IESG.
[20:51:10] <anewton> alex: while we are trying to fix this, we shouldn't crash it
[20:51:28] <anewton> hta: when I think of the ietf, it is an internet organization and that it is also a people organization
[20:52:15] <anewton> ekr: I keep hearing 'I just want to do engineering and not politics" Unfortunately we are big
[20:52:43] <anewton> ekr: we have management. we can't be unmanaged contributors or we won't get stuff done
[20:53:00] <anewton> pete resnick: wanted to make comments on the wg chair draft
[20:53:23] <anewton> pr: concerned about giving more power. they have power now, they just don't know it
[20:53:27] --- kenh has joined
[20:53:35] <anewton> pr: just empower them, don't increase their power
[20:53:48] <anewton> pr: increase their responsiblity for the sheparding cycle
[20:54:02] <anewton> pr: lost frame of thought
[20:54:03] --- tlyu has joined
[20:54:21] <anewton> alex: clarify sheparding cycle
[20:54:49] <anewton> pr: the fact the wg chair is part of the cycle, means chair can answer wg questions about status
[20:55:04] <anewton> pr: makes chair intimately knowledgable about the process
[20:55:33] <anewton> pr: references to appeals process and this would change it
[20:55:50] <anewton> hta: comment on responsibility and empowerment and authority
[20:56:32] <anewton> john loughney: would be happy as wg chari to get more responsibility if get able to get doc through
[20:56:41] <anewton> jl: wouldn't want it without that
[20:57:03] <anewton> jl: would be happy with most of the proposal. would like accountablility for the review team
[20:57:28] <anewton> jl: would like to sit down with review teams when they reject and then appeal to their boss
[20:57:42] --- stpeter has left: Disconnected
[20:58:04] <anewton> jl: when the AD is involved in the engineering, things work great
[20:58:14] <anewton> jl: when there is a separation, the colaboration doesn't work
[20:58:34] --- perry has joined
[20:58:35] --- tytso has joined
[20:58:36] --- stpeter has joined
[20:58:44] <anewton> ted: proposals differ in reporting structure of the review teams
[20:59:05] <anewton> ted: having review team report to the wg chair or to the AD?
[20:59:18] <anewton> ted: which would build the colaborative environment you are looking for
[20:59:22] <jhutz> heh. I guess Bert is the new IETF chair
[21:00:04] <anewton> ted: mentions how chairs always play good cop and hate playing bad cop. in the new role, that changes
[21:00:26] <anewton> ted: AD's are technical managers up to a certain point, and then advocates afterward
[21:00:41] <anewton> ted: how this changes it, more thought and comment is needed
[21:00:54] <anewton> jl: chair is suppose to be advocate once wg has consensus
[21:01:17] <anewton> keith moore: first cuts of solutions on cutting iesg work load needs to come from the iesg
[21:01:40] <anewton> km: some of the proposals on wg chairs manage process is brilliant... lower latency, load shed for iesg
[21:01:50] <anewton> km: have doubt about giving chair power over content
[21:02:06] <anewton> km: hard to find chair without conflict of interest
[21:02:20] <anewton> km: will result in more appeals to the IESG
[21:02:39] <anewton> km: holding up line
[21:02:49] <anewton> alex: what do yo mean it will be hard to find wg charis?
[21:03:06] <anewton> km: effort needs to be concentrated in the working groups.
[21:03:23] <anewton> km: need to understand step-wise refinement through the engineering process
[21:03:48] <anewton> randy bush: need to hear about improving quality of document, not just process
[21:04:28] <anewton> eric brunner: if we put a wg with milestones, we would get around to do things in 2006
[21:04:39] <anewton> eb: need leadership to have doc to shred.
[21:04:51] <anewton> eb: I think your timeline is good.
[21:05:09] <anewton> eb: we do the impossible. good to have the challenge
[21:05:38] <anewton> eb: look at participation and gap between income and expenses... are we just getting back to normal levels? should we shrink the IETF?
[21:05:53] --- ggm has left: Disconnected
[21:06:15] <anewton> sb: comments on consensus/majority for iesg doing this
[21:06:22] <anewton> sb: not one of the drafts was draft-iesg
[21:06:25] <anewton> room: huh?
[21:06:28] --- ggm has joined
[21:06:42] <anewton> sb: we discussed it and don't claim these as the answers
[21:07:00] <anewton> sb: it is too soon for us to make the decision
[21:07:34] <anewton> ms: we can't make consensus decisions about this with the outcome from vienna
[21:07:53] <anewton> ms: what I saw last night were proposals from iesg members, but what about proposals from others
[21:08:14] <anewton> ms: mentions experiement, wants results
[21:08:31] <anewton> alex: did not have backup slides to show Brian's work
[21:08:52] <anewton> alex: we got a lot of volunteers and only 6 people did it
[21:09:15] <anewton> oops, that was brian, not alex
[21:09:38] <anewton> bc: broad based review system will only fly if wide review
[21:09:41] --- tytso has left
[21:09:51] <anewton> dave crocker: what is needed for reviews are poeple to ask for them
[21:10:12] <anewton> rob austein: the two classes of proposals last ngith were interalated.
[21:10:21] <anewton> ra: inter-area review
[21:10:49] <anewton> ra: we need enough people in the management to do the review
[21:11:07] <anewton> ted: we are trying to add another tool to make this an open process
[21:11:23] <anewton> ted: will go to main list and specific list
[21:11:34] <anewton> ted: are there are other tools to make this an open process
[21:11:42] <anewton> ted: it is our intention for this to be open
[21:12:02] <anewton> john wockowsky?: wg chairs proposal has merit to spreading the load
[21:12:11] <anewton> jw: we understand the iesg is sufferring
[21:12:36] <anewton> jw: but it fails to take into account of how people work and their motivations
[21:12:46] --- galvinjamesm has joined
[21:13:01] <anewton> jw: chairs shouldn't be technical police
[21:13:20] <anewton> jw: people come here paid by employeers. asking somebody in that situation to be neutral is difficult
[21:13:38] <anewton> jw: mark crispin made this point last night
[21:13:42] <hartmans> But we already ask people to be relatively neutral as chairs.
[21:13:55] <anewton> jw: margarett did not understand the question on checks and balances
[21:14:01] <warlord> But many chairs are not neutral
[21:14:04] <anewton> jw: it is complicated
[21:14:20] <anewton> jw: I'm afraid this doc has not been properly engineered
[21:14:53] <anewton> alex: it is not fair to ask wg chairs to ensure adequate tech quality
[21:15:00] <anewton> alex: ???
[21:15:14] <anewton> jw: that is an example of the point, chairs can't be neutral
[21:15:20] <hartmans> True, choosing chairs is hard and we may not always succeed.
[21:15:37] <anewton> jw: re: colaboration, make that the goal intead of devolution
[21:15:55] <anewton> jw: put people in jobs where they have an incentive to do the jobs they do
[21:16:20] <anewton> alex: they are suppose to be fair and they are suppose to ensure technical quality today
[21:16:38] <anewton> jw: what I heard from last night was that she was gonna give them authority
[21:17:11] <anewton> bernard aboba: while the iesg is accountable to the nomcom, the wg chairs are not
[21:17:20] <hartmans> I don't think all these people realize how much of this authority a chair who chooses to excersise already has.
[21:17:21] <anewton> ba: there are checks and balances
[21:17:52] <anewton> hta: remember we have a system of checks and balances in place today
[21:17:59] <anewton> hta: it kinda works
[21:18:28] <anewton> hta: cuts lines to current poeple
[21:18:51] <anewton> allison mankin: that doc is not complete and more docuemntation is needed
[21:19:43] <anewton> am: change of role of chairs in the future should happen.
[21:19:57] <anewton> am: but one expects the AD's do look over how the chairs work
[21:20:17] <anewton> am: if that doesn't happen as much as it should, the AD's are proably overloaded
[21:20:47] --- anewton has left: Disconnected
[21:21:12] --- anewton has joined
[21:21:18] --- javier has left
[21:22:12] <ggm> wg chairs non elected
[21:22:20] <ggm> ? involved all over the place on stuff
[21:22:25] <ggm> ? already have lot of power
[21:22:42] <ggm> ? other standards bodies chairs in general are neutral. supposed only to moderate
[21:22:58] <ggm> ? advance process forward, have to be neutral, no involvement in doc & technology.
[21:23:08] <ggm> ? so very worried about process,. give WG chairs even more power
[21:23:20] <eblanton> (? == alex ?)
[21:23:25] <ggm> ? chairs for years and years. no election process. screw ourselves up
[21:23:29] <ggm> alex should look at tools
[21:23:53] <ggm> alex thousand experts, in s/w think using tools in job very poor
[21:24:17] <hildjj> last supper: http://pictures.sprintpcs.com/guest/photo_in_photoshare.jsp;jsessionid=aaa9ashEfFo0Br?machineid=pcs001&elementID=5216674565&invite=ZE4r5R70h85xOU380aQL
[21:24:29] <ggm> alex those are two movers inprocess. shifting powers from elected, to non-elected and have direct interest is bad choice
[21:24:45] <ggm> need for cultural change
[21:24:56] <ggm> other groups little evidence (this is an IESGer)
[21:25:05] <ggm> what proper role is. where checks/balances/accountability have to come in
[21:25:16] <ggm> don;t change how operate, also push accountability with responsibility
[21:25:16] <stpeter> hildjj: quit moving the phone when you shoot :)
[21:25:21] --- tytso has joined
[21:25:25] <ggm> ted nothing incurrent proposal about selecting not by ADs
[21:25:27] <stpeter> where's that mrose photo?
[21:26:00] <ggm> ted one thing important to know in current situation is two chairs. recognized tension betwen needs of techexpert and process, two better than one. can look at in addition to AD role. make sure WG has overall neutral position
[21:26:22] <ggm> ted to be cultural change, community has to buy into or we shop around for other ways
[21:26:25] <ggm> alex been in IETF long enough
[21:26:30] <mukesh77> hildjj: What camera phone are you using !!! Use Nokia :)
[21:26:44] <hartmans> How many of the people complaining about changes in chair role are chairs. I realize the answer is certainly not zero.
[21:26:50] <hildjj> (sorry all: pasted that into the wrong window)
[21:27:02] <ggm> alex initially two chairs coming from opposite camps only once, balanced approach. other than that, I really think most of the time have senior and junior chair, usually one does process, other drives where goes
[21:27:15] --- loughney has joined
[21:27:17] <ggm> alex in many situations, problems signalled to you caused by such situations. driving process in certain direction
[21:27:27] <ggm> alex against will of WG. or large majority. concerned
[21:27:54] <ggm> alex go and talk to other standards bodies, fear we are going to damage what we have, difficult to repair once damaged
[21:28:05] <ggm> HA note now, have about 16 people in line, its 9:30
[21:28:20] <ggm> HA ask floor question, then go on talking.
[21:28:40] <ggm> HA is the general direction that has been proposed, not details, we can do a lot of that, but general direction to add more formal auth to WG role a good idea?
[21:29:03] <ggm> HA make that 50good 10bad 10dontknow 30noidea
[21:29:13] <loughney> anyone else here confused at what we are trying to do? I've completely lost sight about what the IESG and/or IAB would actually like to be doing.
[21:29:20] <ggm> HA more discussion needed
[21:29:36] <ggm> HA next Q. doc review. as alex presented last night. details still to be worked out. good or bad idea
[21:29:54] <ggm> HA straw poll overall vg idea.
[21:30:06] <ggm> HA saw 50 good 2 bad 10 dont know
[21:30:17] <hartmans> To clarify I thought that was a bad idea because of specific problems in what was presented last night.
[21:30:43] <hartmans> I think there are good ideas in that space.
[21:30:49] <ggm> HA if only can do one . do doc review? 40%
[21:31:00] <ggm> HA chair? fewer?
[21:31:09] <ggm> HA none of the above ? not that many?
[21:31:14] <ggm> HA silly Q overwhelming
[21:31:21] <ggm> [laughter]
[21:31:34] --- shep has joined
[21:31:45] --- Bill has left: Disconnected
[21:31:53] <ggm> HA need to talk more so talk more
[21:32:05] <ggm> Ted Lemon
[21:32:29] --- tomphelan has joined
[21:32:56] --- galvinjamesm has left: Replaced by new connection
[21:32:59] <ggm> TL ietf has embarrasment of richers. lots of smart people. participants. big problem. seen in v imp. WG went to during meeting, were 3 proposals to solve basic problems, in another 4 for basic problem. impossible to get consensus. some will see slight favours in each direction
[21:33:57] <ggm> TL can't get consensus in that situation. not exactly on the point, but important to consider. what I see is good, pleased with what I saw last night, problems, cannot get perfect soln, don't hold back on going forward, but I do not think will ever get consensus on this. that problem used to be addressed, in general. lots of other things to say, will leave it at that
[21:34:01] <ggm> Ted Hardie
[21:34:29] --- muonzoo has joined
[21:34:42] <ggm> TH wrote draft on what to do, when can't come to consensus, but must have SOME answer. seek review. not change to basic methodology, is suggestion we need another tool in the belt to deal with this. consensus is a long process, building collab, working to shared goal. maybe too long. need review.
[21:35:01] <ggm> TL to address this, technique was used like that in one of two WG with problem. thus far no evidence worked
[21:35:07] <ggm> April Marine
[21:35:13] <ggm> AM yay! I made it!!!
[21:35:55] <ggm> AM I thought both good and bad idea. raised hand for both. factor been touching on, not said overtly and affects how we see the proposals, effect how implementing will change. tradiditonally IETF is volunteer org.
[21:37:38] <ggm> AM sitting here, as WG chair, former IESG. IAB/IESG get support to do full-time job, but WG don't. what we get is an unfunded mandate (from Bernard) downside will be same thing that happened to people on dias: problem finding qualified people who can fulfill WG chair role, if role increases. can change procedures is fine and I support that, willing to do what I can, but my own reaction last night, even though I support change, is 'youre' not the boss of me, can't tell me what to do' that was my reaction. disconnect, don't realize what they have. its not MY job (any more thank god) [laughter] so I think even though I know you
[21:38:19] --- galvinjamesm has joined
[21:38:27] <ggm> AM meant that as a collab venture,. its like WE must take care of YOU and this is what YOU must do not WE are going to do. have to recognize. WE doing something together, factors for some of us not all of us. forget about volunteerism, we will not recognize changes will affect this, people who come will be overtly funded to come.
[21:38:37] <ggm> HA look forward to that spirit
[21:38:45] <ggm> IESG dude
[21:38:52] <ggm> IESG ? not about offloading IESG
[21:39:07] <ggm> IESG ? is about making it work faster. early review. fix early in system. can crank turn faster. doc faster
[21:39:25] <ggm> AM thats why I raisde one hand for good idea. but will limit people. faster
[21:39:34] <ggm> Alison Mankin better quality
[21:39:52] <ggm> A-M 75% to 90% already do what we suggest. probably most of the time. not suggesting much change
[21:40:04] <ggm> AM but are significant changes, sheparding all the way, challenging [laughs]
[21:40:18] <ggm> Alex Zinin specific suggestions?
[21:40:25] <ggm> AM not sure its possible.
[21:40:43] <ggm> AM if I come up with it, will tell you, but not confident. not looking at 'running out of money'
[21:40:45] <ggm> AZ this is the IESGs job
[21:40:53] <ggm> AM No. not what I meant. meant this is OUR job
[21:41:09] <ggm> Melninda Shore will talk faster not mumble
[21:41:38] --- loughney has left
[21:42:38] <ggm> MS IESG got the token because decision making process failed. come to some endgame. have no consensus. need to focus on consensus process not consensus product and able to live with the end. process is not workiing. talk about how to improve, not to ML. didn't say where it WOULD go. real change in IETF process, not approved by floor. eg next in Seoul ,
[21:43:24] --- galvinjamesm has left: Replaced by new connection
[21:43:57] <ggm> MS can make personal commitment, if feel its being honoured
[21:44:04] <ggm> Jonas
[21:44:37] <ggm> J like idea that was presented yesterday. thought I would write it down, didn't have time. good step forward take as baseline and improve
[21:44:41] <mukesh77> Jonne Soininen
[21:44:43] --- dcrocker has left: Disconnected
[21:44:45] <mukesh77> JS:
[21:44:59] <ggm> JS would like to say, my opinion, need certain accountabilities might not be there yet.
[21:45:06] <ggm> JS same issues at lower level.
[21:45:09] <ggm> Pete Resnick
[21:45:17] <ggm> PR say more about this, or other topic? Advcom?
[21:45:24] <ggm> HA if don't raise ADVCOM wont get raised
[21:45:37] <ggm> PR none of this is to say I don't think there is problem. ADVCOM has done good job looking at it
[21:46:12] <ggm> PR last night put Q to H/L if incorp. was done deal or possibility. was told not done deal. talked to lawyers yet? none in room? come up with 'novel' entity status? because we are different?
[21:46:19] <ggm> LD what do you mean when you say incorperation?
[21:46:38] <ggm> PR I mean legal entity have as leadership corperate officers with responsibility to money. and NOT to tech output
[21:46:49] <ggm> LD and how, not all that familiar, help me out here..
[21:46:53] <ggm> PR asking me? [laughter]
[21:47:02] --- galvinjamesm has joined
[21:47:09] <ggm> LD trying to understand weather or not that founds into not-for-profit for purpose not funding stream
[21:47:27] <ggm> PR and yes the board might have responsibility other than purpose of the org.
[21:47:30] <ggm> Rob AUstein
[21:47:56] <ggm> RA hear you, understand, but do not want to be guinea pig for new form. incorp, is about legal protection dont want to be test case
[21:48:15] <ggm> LD retain aspect of moving work forward
[21:48:50] <ggm> PR other requirements, body remains open. remain accountable to membership. coming up with list of issues, lawyer will have heart-attack. but is important
[21:49:04] --- perry has left
[21:49:53] <ggm> IAB dude have to deal with money, not primary objective. if you don't do it, have to deal with other peoples decisions,. if you have to have to spend time non-interesting stuff. when we looked, conclusion was better for people in room to have struct where people here have some say in how money is spent. concern if spend all time worrying about money, also not right. how to get it done so not all time spent on it
[21:50:18] <ggm> PR want to follow up. not want to be guinea pig. we are stuck being a guinea pig. no lawyer will retain our form
[21:50:28] <ggm> HA had lunch with prof of org. psych. over at stanford
[21:50:54] <ggm> HA interesting part was, he said, unique,? been there, done that. lots of orgs in world, we are not as unique as we think
[21:51:08] <ggm> RB. one or two essential things to take to social engineers, be very aware of business research
[21:51:12] <ggm> PR love to hear from experts
[21:52:05] <ggm> ? in right direction. same lines have been thinking for myself. have to support it. implementation much worse than just making proposals
[21:52:41] <ggm> ? also think WG chairs need help in new role senior persons help
[21:52:45] --- perry has joined
[21:52:56] <ggm> ? second thing already mentioned, tools, lessen the burden on WG chairs, need better tools
[21:53:06] <ggm> Spencer Dawkins
[21:53:18] <ggm> SD slide of Qs please? short list of Qs
[21:53:18] --- galvinjamesm has left: Disconnected
[21:53:48] --- galvinjamesm has joined
[21:54:02] <ggm> SD scott bradner, made positive experience in process world here, mentioned we produce documents. look at how many we make, we don't make a whole lot.
[21:54:13] <ggm> SD if you don't agree with that, follow that work closely
[21:54:25] <ggm> HA we have become a producer of proposed standards only.
[21:54:31] <ggm> Mike Patton. two points
[21:54:38] <ggm> MP number of people worried about additional work on chairs.
[21:54:52] <ggm> MP simple appl of arith and numbers gave me one hr per week per chair. not much additonal work.
[21:54:56] <ggm> RB Parkinsons law
[21:55:07] <ggm> MP yes but simple model implies don't be so afraid
[21:55:10] <ggm> MP second point
[21:55:31] <ggm> MP several proposals on spreading out review. taking experts from various areas, I believe I am in 4.
[21:55:43] <ggm> MP IETF has never had area in which I don't do work.
[21:56:00] <ggm> MP generalists in the room, may be better people to spread out review. encourage doc owners to find room for generalists
[21:56:06] <ggm> HA make you do the review 4 times ! good
[21:56:19] <ggm> MP make me entire review ctte for one area, do not volunteer
[21:56:24] <ggm> Rob Austien
[21:56:28] <ggm> RA missed joke
[21:56:37] <ggm> John ?
[21:57:12] <ggm> John accept have scale problem in IESG. not about fairness. pushback is not from WG chairs who want to share responsibiity, is not about buy-in. work until rough consensus, not path to success.
[21:57:43] <ggm> John changing process without changing structure is as likely to succeed as it would in programming.
[21:57:49] <ggm> John when set up, assumption was WG formed for mission by small group, and go away. doesn't happen now.
[21:58:55] <ggm> John we have large complex org. still have same process in place for selecting wg, chairs, based on people trying to achieve an agenda. changing the workflow without recognizing the structure doesn't match task is doomed to failure. other stuff, creating directorates within areas, is good trend. recognizing wg last a long time and can be area of expertise is good idea. old fantasy of how WG operate, pushing work out to it isn't going to work
[21:59:05] <ggm> HA when the structure is the process, whats the difference in changing one or other?
[21:59:15] <ggm> John when I last programmed had to do both together
[21:59:32] <ggm> Ted Hardie many more changes than presented last night in drafts. both new structure and process
[21:59:45] --- Joseph (jishac) has left
[21:59:57] <ggm> TH if other forms, good to discuss, very much agree have to look at whole way things fit together. have problem
[22:00:33] <ggm> TH we are not a program, collection of individuals, need to project where we want to be in 5 yrs but work in 6 month increments or something. any help very much welcome, proposals seen last night are pieces of larger proposals
[22:01:55] <ggm> John but specific example about WG chairs, what sue was talking about, same as me. people come here with an agenda. you will fail if you don't recognize human nature. design process to accom. have a chance. wishfull thinking about changing human nature by encouragement/buy-in/fairness in work load is not a good desgn process. need to look at whole picture, what we got last night didn't look like that.\
[22:02:11] <ggm> TH not trying to do that, trying to get you to help critique
[22:02:33] <ggm> Alex Zinin while changing structure do not want this to be DoS on current activity
[22:02:44] <ggm> John deisgn first then transition plan. but one at a time no design is chaos
[22:02:52] <ggm> Jordi P
[22:03:45] <ggm> JP interested in balance of power, but not into chairs. into WG itself. sometimes is difficult to be WG chair or AD recognized, but sometimes we have good chairs, ad and some not so good. sometimes they work/collaborate and other times not. we need to pass is the workload little bit more to WG and let chairs be part of WG, directors, but real democratic WG.
[22:03:57] <ggm> JP probably this can help increase volunteer effort. more and more going down
[22:04:07] <ggm> Alex Zinnin what to group not chairs?
[22:04:27] --- raeburn has left: Disconnected
[22:04:43] <ggm> JP let WG select chairs, remove them. let them reach consensus but not without explanations. not interpret charter, let WG interpret charter. maybe these things
[22:04:47] --- cb has joined
[22:04:55] <ggm> HA if we have voting, have to have membership. if we have membership, we have criteria.
[22:05:09] <ggm> zinin to nomcom
[22:05:12] <ggm> Ralf Droms.
[22:05:22] <ggm> RD april made many of the comments sentiments I want to express.
[22:05:41] <ggm> RD internal pushback against proposals made last night, highlighted by terminology used this evening
[22:05:56] --- mukesh77 has left: Disconnected
[22:05:56] <ggm> RD were there any current active WG chairs drafting proposals last night?
[22:06:06] <ggm> HA missed it
[22:06:17] <ggm> zinin several reviewd by WG chairs. all have been sent to solutions ML.
[22:06:26] <ggm> SMB several IESG also WG chairs in other areas
[22:07:17] <ggm> RB process from the dias to us, asking for help, not bringing us into initial brainstorming, development idea generation. some degree of 'who shoots first paints the target'
[22:07:26] --- mukesh77 has joined
[22:07:36] <ggm> RB now we can engineer a little, don't get sense most of us will feel we were stakeholders, came up with the proposals
[22:08:01] <ggm> IAB some of this was directly responsive to problem group WG. community was involved there, consensus, motivated this.
[22:08:02] <ggm> RB ok
[22:08:26] <ggm> IESG design team? have to accept it in broad outline? is that it?
[22:08:57] --- argc has left
[22:08:57] <ggm> RB yea. in that sense, anything in front of us, has some gravitas, weight we can use to go somewher else but we didn't get to pick the startin point
[22:09:12] --- argc has joined
[22:09:37] <ggm> Dude? body used to producing standards, care about internet. but how long. extremely long. care, but my company has agenda. if going to take so long, will alienate people with interest, move elsewhere to get job done
[22:09:48] --- leg has left: Replaced by new connection
[22:10:19] --- sakai has left
[22:10:52] <mukesh77> Dude? is Basavraj Patil
[22:10:58] <ggm> Dude? talk about consensus, people very smart, cannot build consensus here. 10+ years old working here. greater numbers here in last 3-4 years. things have changed. needs to produce stds for now, if IETF doesnt do this, no point coming here. try to get consensus here, proposal. will never get it. lastly. first time, or at least, we have proposal here,
[22:10:59] --- sakai has joined
[22:11:14] <ggm> ta. BP cannot fix problems. takes forever. take concrete proposal. maybe issues
[22:11:31] <ggm> BP at least is concrete proposal. dont understand problem fear of making change, too comfortable with status quo
[22:11:52] --- mukesh77 has left
[22:11:57] <ggm> BP ichange is good
[22:11:57] --- johani has joined
[22:12:15] <ggm> Zinin reach consensus here Q what when we can't reach consensus
[22:12:40] --- kenh has left
[22:12:58] <perry> we can't arrive at perfect consensus. so lets just ramrod something through without consent from anyone.
[22:12:58] <ggm> BP everyone has idea. is like writing code. diferent way solving same problem. put one forward. not able to get perfect consensus, give people time to come into it,. get majority. rough. big changes? first steps
[22:13:02] <perry> sorry, did I say that out loud?
[22:13:07] <ggm> BP make further steps along the way
[22:13:13] <ggm> HA thanks. some telling us go slower, and some faster
[22:13:38] <ggm> Sorry. don't know this name. so another dude
[22:13:51] <ggm> dude point of org, to make internet better.
[22:14:02] --- galvinjamesm has left: Replaced by new connection
[22:14:06] <ggm> dude tech convention org, less of standards org (was said to him)
[22:14:10] <ggm> dude strange to me.
[22:14:47] <ggm> dude wanted to raise the point, assumption that we are primarilty a stds org. is getting to the Qn if the IETF is doing what it could do to make the internet better. or, part of process of change is say some things are not being done well. did it come up? should it?
[22:15:06] <ggm> SMB agree characterization. far more clarifying existing code, convinced its good
[22:15:14] <ggm> HA keep short points
[22:15:17] --- galvinjamesm has joined
[22:15:23] --- ggm has left: Disconnected
[22:15:43] --- ggm has joined
[22:15:54] <ggm> Greg Daly.
[22:15:59] <ggm> GD good chairs, appreciated.
[22:16:14] <ggm> GD means in couple of instances, do lot of work themselves. from tech PoV. nobody else will.
[22:16:47] <ggm> GD as well as nobody else to do mgt. heard a lot about accountability. big problem if we give these people who are doing work themselves work of doc sheparrding. may need to adopt new role. doc shep role from existing WG chair roles
[22:17:09] <ggm> GD feed into doc process, but NOT WG chair, accountable, but not chair. don't want to see those people doing work now walking away,
[22:17:23] <ggm> GD problem for IESG walking away, WG chairs will do same in same condition
[22:17:57] <ggm> GD if WG chair currently, even if not doing work, get to see it done. if become IESG role, may not ge tthat pleasure
[22:18:05] <ggm> HA one wish, say need more fun
[22:18:19] <ggm> Barbera Frazer finances
[22:19:08] --- cb has left
[22:19:10] --- galvinjamesm has left: Replaced by new connection
[22:19:35] --- galvinjamesm has joined
[22:19:35] <ggm> BF last several years, thanks to Geoff talking me into ISOC trustees, 3 painful years, grasping last breath from finance standpoint. affected IETF in RFC ed (funded by ISOC?) lot of us spend effort to stabilize funding. now have .org thing, funding looks good. direct attnention here. vienna, ietf prior, HA put numbers on board, at one point we had cushion
[22:20:00] --- eblanton has left: Disconnected
[22:20:45] <ggm> BF if expenses for meeting exceeded what we brought in, ok. but cushion went away. graph last night did not track them, where we are financially, not apparent to the room. like to ask. 1) what is financial situation today. are we in a hole? about to do intl meeting, all for intl meetings, but we know atttendance will be lower, exps higher, gap will be worse. high risk. where are we today. and, 2) what are immediate steps to stabilize this org finanaically
[22:20:51] <ggm> HA to answer quickly
[22:21:18] <ggm> HA discuss with foretec a) prediction for loss of foretec is $400k loss. I thought $500k he was more optimistic.
[22:21:26] <ggm> HA is half of cash left in fat years.
[22:21:46] <ggm> HA has done some drastic measures to his org, gives creadible chance of budget for 2004 of shortfall $120k.
[22:22:01] <ggm> HA that is most of the rest of the cash. not acceptable situation
[22:22:01] --- raeburn has joined
[22:22:06] <ggm> HA have to figure out how to change it
[22:22:26] --- mellon has left: Disconnected
[22:22:50] <ggm> HA one of the things the ADVCOM has seen,. separate budgets in ISOC side, meeting side but no ability to move money between is stupid. have to look at things, requires time to re-organization.
[22:23:35] <ggm> HA KR given us, guarantees to cover excess expenses. no guarantee to attendance.according to current prediction Foretec will not go under, but its weak statement. its not ok
[22:24:06] --- argc has left
[22:24:10] <ggm> BF given cushion remains right now, $140k, basically we have 2004 calender year to get act together to manage finances, otherwise we will be in negative after oct/nov 2004 meeting
[22:24:20] <ggm> LD exactly one of the main drivers in ADVCOM report
[22:25:14] <ggm> LD kind of thinking that got us concerned to form ADVCOM, do groundwork, to make course changes next year, things like unifying the budget, match exps. against revenue, have better sensitivities incurred, before incurred, judgements, is important step. ideas like forming legal entity, is not something dumb.
[22:25:27] <ggm> BF agree. when we formed the legal umbrella, understand the pain.
[22:25:47] <ggm> LD coming back to point, in round numbers, that is the picture, don't know 2005 could be worse/better but yes we have a year
[22:26:00] <ggm> BA also been on board of non-profit
[22:26:05] <ggm> BA (bernard aboba)
[22:26:22] <ggm> BA consistently underperforming budgetary ests. orgs which do that, tend to persist doing that,. one of my concerns
[22:26:36] <ggm> BA not so much est, but probablilty of not meeting it. cause for concern
[22:28:09] <ggm> BA seconrd thing, when in position like that, good to know, to know what to do. current org doesn't make that easy. prediction becomes hard. puts all of the supporting orgs in difficult position. have to right their own ships, lots of fiscal responsibilities on all sides, difficult to look at whole, there is no whole. one of the major reasons, concerns IAB has, own personal feeling, like to see situation corrected before end of 2004 insome way. concern is current trends do not want to run business with depleted capital. need to make adv payments. below a certain level, it cant be done. worried
[22:28:17] <ggm> BF hope continue to keep this body informed.
[22:28:39] <ggm> BF all of us sensitive to the people issues, take care of them with this problems, hope continue to keep as much info flowing. have big stake in this
[22:28:55] <ggm> Randall Gallins
[22:29:40] --- thatoneguy has left
[22:30:22] <ggm> RG several analogies to familiar technology. misleading. this is not a program. we cannot debug or throw out things if fail. changes are drastic, but needed. seen a lot of drafts, discussion on changing three things. docu review, structure and func split/roles, and stds, names applied, proposals intruiging, good ideas, but getting back to fast/slow I think both. pick one for fast, slow on others. early and better doc review go to getting stds produced faster and easing workload
[22:30:34] <ggm> RG focus attention on them. dont do everything at once
[22:30:51] <ggm> Don Eastlake
[22:31:14] <ggm> DE suprised at scope. greater chance of chaos. pick some to go forward, leave settle time for other choices
[22:31:40] <ggm> DE if WG chairs screw up, have to replace. maybe fewer WG. doesnt mean dont make changes
[22:32:27] --- stpeter has left: Disconnected
[22:32:27] <ggm> DE employers have been insulted by some people at mike. I've come to many IETF no employer ever directed my input, or affected me, except wanting interop proto. its not employer directed. people who think that, are bringing things from other stds orgs
[22:32:29] <ggm> [applause]
[22:32:38] <ggm> HA ok to be told to do what you want to do
[22:32:40] <ggm> Dave Crocker
[22:32:45] <ggm> continue RG and DE thread
[22:33:00] <ggm> DC 11 yrs ago had revolution. but changes were small. introduced nomcom and time limits. the small change
[22:33:23] <ggm> DC is that without any structure changes, reassigned a decision process. totality of Kobe revolution.
[22:33:37] <ggm> DC in face of that experience, scope and complexity of proposals seen last night was stunning.
[22:33:47] <ggm> DC some good, some complex, some confusing. not all to throw away
[22:34:03] <ggm> DC cliche in any org change, any change is guaranteed to have unexpected side effects most bad. ANY change
[22:34:19] <ggm> DC number of changes proposed is beyond any number i can come up with. Randy made a suggestion, take these
[22:34:56] <ggm> DC and divide into bite and manageable short term, eg lot of support/energy was moving admin to WG from AD. helpful. easy to do. don't think personally will make strategic change, but doesnt mean we shouldnt do it
[22:35:10] <ggm> DC some other proposals are not well understood, not clear who supports, who in IAB/IESG
[22:35:25] <ggm> DC if we can persue discretely, not grouped, will get focus and outcome
[22:35:34] <ggm> RB agree partly. want to speak to something BF said.
[22:36:07] <ggm> RB this org is not in financial control. don't have the data. getting real numbers is impossible. and we're not an ORG! so its not suprising were not under ORG controls. has to be persued orthogonal
[22:36:10] <ggm> James ?
[22:36:17] <ggm> James agree with.RB and DC
[22:36:32] <ggm> James ? magnitude of changes scary to anybody who has seen this in other orgs.
[22:37:48] <ggm> James ? you mentioned membership? what does it mean to be somebody who can nominate to nomcom? thought that for the entire time, from this side of the gap. points getting honed in. not a lot of complaints being addressed. thought about polling us? silence is not acceptance. poll the people who can put up NOMCOM. get difnintive not near, but majority, some can be decided.
[22:38:03] <ggm> LD how could you relate what you ask to the output of the problem WG
[22:38:46] <ggm> James ? I have 11 active drafts. Im way over my head. I couldnt spend the time on the problem WG. we had a toe to toe about the adv committee. choice of who was on it. that was my foray, all the time I could spend. is that shame on me for not having the time?
[22:39:16] <ggm> LD where I was going understand there isn't enough input from the whole community. asking how the problem issue doc differs from that. if you didn't have the time to participate in that
[22:39:50] <ggm> James? fair statement, if addressed all the probs, wouldnt be bitching. lots of squaking, repetitive, some focussed, what I think I saw, in the problem area. not satisfying
[22:40:35] <ggm> LD that part is clear. but, of the problems in the issues doc. proposals written, try to relate what parts of that they are trying to solve. but we are discussing are they going to address some of the issues? will we still if one/some of these get implemented? just phrasing this.
[22:40:46] <ggm> James? will one of the props do this? which one? possibly? is silence a choice?
[22:41:06] <ggm> James? saw no acceptance
[22:41:26] --- avri has joined
[22:41:33] <ggm> LD we're not there yet, trying to address that.
[22:41:45] <ggm> James ? not there yet since the late 90s. no answer followed through.
[22:42:03] <ggm> RB since I am in inifinite trouble already? should we restart POISED
[22:42:33] <ggm> James? take to ML
[22:42:46] <ggm> Rob Austein. dont agree with everything in problem WG
[22:43:04] <ggm> RA part of the problem is lack of agreement on goals/stakes fundamentals to make group decision
[22:43:27] <ggm> RA answer to Q. I do expect to have people throw things from down there to up here no matter what. no unified sense of purpose
[22:43:33] <ggm> James ? same Q year after year?
[22:43:35] <ggm> [floor] yes
[22:43:47] <ggm> HA strive for answer. getting closer to actually doing something
[22:43:55] <ggm> Ha not there yet for many definitions of fair
[22:44:59] <ggm> ?? criticisms from outside IETF is productivity or lack of it. putting responsibility into WG chairs & WG is good if feel overloaded need more chairs. 4 or 5. take responsibility for certain drafts.
[22:45:07] <ggm> [?? is ... who?]
[22:45:13] <ggm> HA secretaries.
[22:45:28] <ggm> ?? but ask for minutestaker, no resp. asking for secr forever is very ambitious
[22:45:44] <ggm> ?? one of the things we need to maybe do is break the wireless a lot more [laughter]
[22:46:00] <ggm> ?? 2 done very good job. more challenges to come. I support last nights idea about increasing efficency.
[22:46:06] <ggm> ??2 early cross review is good thing.
[22:46:24] <ggm> ??2 finallty, lot of methods/tools, happy to volunteer to work on them
[22:46:25] <ggm> HA
[22:46:34] <galvinjamesm> osten franberg (sp?)
[22:46:41] <ggm> Ted Hardie. Looks like Rich is weeping, wondering who he will get to volunteer.
[22:46:43] <ggm> [ta -ggm]
[22:47:06] <ggm> TH talk to NOMCOM. this is the time. people on a technical level. we had NO tech discuss [HEY!]
[22:47:20] <ggm> TH sorry. apologize. I didn't get to play, let me put it that way [laughter]
[22:47:31] <ggm> TH please help Rich, his team. you need them to do this
[22:47:54] <ggm> SMB second that. role of NOMCOM in the past is conduit of feedback in the past, is not just hire and fire, is feedback.
[22:48:04] --- gih has left
[22:48:08] <ggm> HA summarizing this evening.
[22:48:16] <ggm> HA same sentiment got in atlanta.
[22:48:18] --- mrose has left
[22:48:27] <ggm> HA changing engines of airplane in flight. have to do it, but be bloody careful
[22:48:47] --- tomphelan has left
[22:49:10] <ggm> HA people expressed support/interest, in things doing. had some right ideas in sack of ideas. but very strongly recommended we prioritize and we as a community talk about priority, whats import, whats un-safe, get going
[22:49:43] --- sleinen has left: Disconnected
[22:50:22] <ggm> HA but watch out, because its the commuity which does the work. leaderships job is to make it easy for the community to get work done. The community needs good technology, good standards, for the internet. and some of the steps we've talked about we hope will help do exactly that. we're going to take it back to lists, to ietf and solutions mailing lists
[22:50:22] <ggm> got comments didn't put subs addrr up last night
[22:50:40] <ggm> solutions-request@alvestrand.no
[22:50:54] <ggm> subscribe in body
[22:51:12] <ggm> HA if can't reach consensus, have to agree something makes sense. do the best we can. cannot not act. we'll try.
[22:51:20] <ggm> HA thanks for coming and goodnight [applause]
[22:51:24] --- hartmans has left
[22:51:26] <ggm> [we're done here -ggm]
[22:51:30] --- yone has left
[22:51:32] --- falk has left
[22:51:35] --- anewton has left
[22:51:35] --- rjs3 has left: Lost connection
[22:51:40] --- sakai has left
[22:51:43] --- tlyu has left: Disconnected
[22:51:44] --- Milele has left
[22:51:53] --- jmcollis has left
[22:52:00] --- raeburn has left: Disconnected
[22:52:08] --- perry has left
[22:52:39] --- ggm has left
[22:53:27] <shep> last one out, remember to turn off the lights!
[22:53:36] --- warlord has left
[22:53:48] --- Bill has joined
[22:54:00] --- shep has left
[22:54:11] --- Bill has left
[22:54:20] --- jhutz has left: Logged out
[22:54:20] --- jhutz has joined
[22:54:20] --- jhutz has left: Logged out
[22:54:57] --- hildjj has left: Disconnected
[22:57:21] --- muonzoo has left: Disconnected
[22:57:58] --- tytso has left
[23:00:05] --- hta has left: Disconnected
[23:07:18] --- galvinjamesm has left: Disconnected
[23:10:03] --- johani has left: Disconnected
[23:11:28] --- orange has left: Replaced by new connection
[23:13:01] --- avri has left: Disconnected
[23:18:54] --- pgmillard has left