[Pesci-discuss] Re: PESCI team meeting on September 30

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

A small clarification...

We are not starting a major problem analysis exercise. This
was just a discussion to set the context for the principles we
plan to outline in the first PESCI draft.

    Brian

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> (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
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss