Re: Interim meetings - changing the way we work

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

On 05/03/2015 05:41, Andy Bierman wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Benoit Claise <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> On 27/02/2015 16:03, t.p. wrote:
> ....
>
>>> I see 'netmod' as a poster child for this with its issue list, state
>>> machine for issues and so on.  Even though I was tracking the list when
>>> the 'Ynn' issue list was created, I don't know where its state machine
>>> came from.  In recent minutes, I don't know what
>>> "  AB: I am not sure YANG 1.0 specifies C1 explicitly somewhere.
>>>     JS: Does A3 not follow from A2?
>>>     KW: A3 is more a corollary of A2.
>>>     AB: The high-level problem is how to create and maintain the
>>>         information needed to achieve A4. "
>>>
>>> is about; a brief search of mailing list and I-Ds gave me no explanation
>>> for A2 to C1.
>> And what about an email to the NETMOD mailing list, asking this question?
>> How is this any different than meeting minutes on a physical meeting, on
>> which you would have a question?
>>
>
> IMO Juergen does a very good job of recording the minutes of every
> NETMOD interim.
> Here is the header from those minutes (that were taken out of context):
>
> * YANG 1.1 Conformance
> ** https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bjorklund-yang-conformance-problem-00
>
> This clearly indicates that the notes are about the draft identified above.
> These identifiers A1, C2, etc. are in the draft.
>
> The NETMOD and NETCONF WGs have been extra careful about
> getting verification on the WG mailing list before proceeding with proposed
> changes that originate in VI meetings.
+100

Regards, Benoit
>
>
>> Regards, Benoit
>
> Andy
>
>
>>>
>>> And if a different group of engineers works on different topics, then
>>> they will likely, in the absence of any guidance, use different
>>> technology, different terminology and end up with a way of working that
>>> is as alien to the first group.
>>>
>>> As I said, changing the way we work.
>>>
>>> Tom Petch
>>> </tp>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --Tom
>>>
>>>
>>>> Lou
>>>>
>>>>> If you want a real example of how this can actually work, watch Anees
>>> explain how Open Config has done this with just weekly phone calls and a
>>> bunch of people typing on keyboards. They've done this in less than a
>>> year, and have rough consensus and (production) running code.  This is
>>> how the IETF used to operate: people got together, hacked code and got
>>> things working.  The goal was not having meetings, but producing code
>>> with rough consensus.
>>>>>
>>> https://code.facebook.com/posts/1421954598097990/networking-scale-recap
>>>>> --Tom
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yours,
>>>>>> Joel
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/26/15 4:21 PM, Thomas D. Nadeau wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2015:4:16 PM, at 4:16 PM, Brian E Carpenter
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 27/02/2015 09:08, Thomas D. Nadeau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 2015:2:42 PM, at 2:42 PM, Benson Schliesser
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Nico Williams wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but a record that a concall or other interim meeting took
>>> place,
>>>>>>>>>>> and who attended, even if there are incomplete or missing
>>> minutes, is
>>>>>>>>>>> important for IPR reasons.  Ensuring that such meetings are
>>> NOTE WELL
>>>>>>>>>>> meetings is (should be) a priority, and that includes ensuring
>>> that a
>>>>>>>>>>> record of that much exists.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ideally the concalls and other interims would be recorded.
>>>>>>>>>> I agree completely. My point was that meeting records (including
>>> minutes) will inevitably be incomplete, or possibly inaccurate, and that
>>> relying on the mailing list as an authoritative record is more
>>> effective.
>>>>>>>>>> Of course it is disappointing that we can't meaningfully
>>> translate voice discussions into text, in the minutes or in mailing list
>>> threads. If there were some magic tool e.g. that took better minutes
>>> then I'd be happy to use it. But otherwise, I think we just have to
>>> trust chairs to manage WG collaboration in whatever way is most
>>> effective for their WG's collaborators.
>>>>>>>>> The first step is to agree that an A/V recording is record
>>> enough.
>>>>>>>> It absolutely is not enough. Please see my previous message,
>>>>>>>> and the relevant rules in RFC 2418.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Brian
>>>>>>> You are missing my point. RFC or not, the IETF needs to evolve.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --Tom
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Perhaps having meetbot/txt notes that at a min include
>>> actions/decisions like we do in the issue tracker we've used for
>>> NETMOD's Yang 1.1's issues.
>>>>>>>>> --Tom
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This will inevitably be suboptimal for some part of the
>>> population. (For instance, I've never been able to find an interim
>>> meeting time that fits the schedules of all attendees.) But if they (we)
>>> always revert to the mailing list for decision making then I suspect our
>>> work can remain open and transparent.
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>> -Benson
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> .
>>>
> .
>