[Pesci-discuss] PESCI team meeting on September 30

(Notes put together by Brian Carpenter and Adrian Farrel)

====

PESCI conference call 2pm GMT Friday 30th September 2005
       Harald Alvestrand
       Scott Brim
       Brian Carpenter
       Elwyn Davies
       Adrian Farrel
       Michael Richardson

Set dates and times of next two conference calls. Wednesdays at 
10 ET

Agreed that we will target publishing an I-D before the cut-off 
date for Vancouver.

Discussed and agreed workplan to move forward with I-D.
- Use existing material as basis
- This meeting: agree document structure
- This week: identify problems that are in scope for this work
- Next week: agree on principles for solving identified problems
- Publish I-D on or before October 17th

Discussed structure and editorial for proposed I-D.
- Agreed basic framework
- Need to add material on problems (in and out of scope)
- Elwyn will be the editor

Looked at ways to open up discussions in Vancouver
- Agreed that a BOF will allow focus
- Deadline for BOF request is Monday 3rd: Harald will draft a
   request
- BOF should be scheduled to run before the Wednesday plenary
- Agenda will include:
    - principles (the draft)
    - next steps (TBD)

Agreed to send minutes of the call to the PESCI-discuss list

Meeting ended 3pm GMT.

Brainstorming on the call about problems included:

- Need to identify which problems are solvable and which not.
   - Solvable problems need to be further distinguished as
     current and imminent
- Of the solvable problems not all are in scope
   - Some are being looked at by other groups
- Problems identified:
   - Timeliness of IETF output
   - Lack of clarity about authority and delegation
   - Poor quality output from WGs
   - IESG overload, which leads to subsidiary problems
      - bottleneck effect
      - too little steering
      - burnout
      - potential lack of candidates
   - Binary nature of appeal/recall process
      - disincentive to go nuclear => festering problems
      - appeals are very time consuming for IESG (and maybe IAB)
      - judge and jury problem for process issues
   - Dealing with complex problems
      - architecture issues hard to handle
   - Standards advancement and maintenance
- Newtrk issues are in scope but we should allow Newtrk to work
   - maybe scope to provide input through principles
- Techspec issues are out of scope, it has its own BOF
   in Vancouver

_______________________________________________
Pesci-discuss mailing list
Pesci-discuss@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss