Re: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] Next (and I think final) version of the Meeting application SoW

Alissa Cooper <> Wed, 23 January 2019 19:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A1B1128CB7 for <>; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 11:32:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=ta7789RY; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=FHquVWok
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0G9aUsIYRbLv for <>; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 11:32:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA74F128B01 for <>; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 11:32:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7D172314E; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 14:32:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 23 Jan 2019 14:32:36 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm2; bh=G wmzeQLoYJTzzG+DxF5mbtzIgvq+F6BSP/ZViejpn2w=; b=ta7789RYkbm/UTNqM AJRK3TzzDHRQQs5TJnA54sgA8Qzukqov06QNqPPHVUF2Qd44rnS4yqsTx1oQ7Dd6 JIyVYsa83C2qECnoupl/l3WDjwcyQwDv4geYGyBe3CavT1lWBOnscGcL9+ZuZvtb nodPZKqPVZv6rljI1rXdjVxbzCD2ku8lXQcjXm64b59qQ7uR1+4kR2lulbQVlWPb 6zoT+hTu4+gyxyugr6s5JQfnDl7FPXJAYxaTYYePOtHTAo/Ih26YFXu2S7EZQYi1 nX3E8GGunwWwZCniXtXZuW2yFXwvrJt8UUmmWYlFXT7JO65P4VwQ7EWwixLMcXSJ SU2uA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=GwmzeQLoYJTzzG+DxF5mbtzIgvq+F6BSP/ZViejpn 2w=; b=FHquVWok5r1uyUdJJFoGFbFD8hZZkkrHvkDA9LJqQmDYXgGzATKhCTGJu T5YnrAitbviEHJiQ2vP2jYF00BIdPaBmUOTCRXluASZu5NPfwbu8DXP1tCTEvEt1 G0dITdhcKNDMhm+hd4zJREUnVAI9J5lzmQq3sfsPnXDlRPsQ+200HMKG3DjTPG8a kqFOES/JXLltO5rtgd4H4cJiEWpfx9kByfHFlKngR6te4eN4cjOYAltHHj2XRUVz 5pvNieZTZvWuC7Op1/0bWJT2wzBeX3W4TKUfMnXtziaLSNmi1mKOKLvJoljR0OoU IeiKIjqxY27T00vv91VCZ1IlF3FHw==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:VMFIXFucSZcgAbXa8RQIIf89b79ON3BYtbuTugrucivOGDOaPEsfuw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedtledriedtgdduvdejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfquhhtnecuuegrihhlohhuthemucef tddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpegtggfuhfgjff fgkfhfvffosehtqhhmtdhhtdejnecuhfhrohhmpeetlhhishhsrgcuvehoohhpvghruceo rghlihhsshgrsegtohhophgvrhifrdhinheqnecuffhomhgrihhnpehivghtfhdrohhrgh enucfkphepudejfedrfeekrdduudejrdelvdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhep rghlihhsshgrsegtohhophgvrhifrdhinhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:VMFIXM_cH7pCPa2a9EJMu1AISEmws36m4a0sbgfXzkW-6OV7E-xJEw> <xmx:VMFIXEQ95Y4ELCpdcL8WZuPE6rS_OGvS2O4Zk4bL-EDCHbCyG7sgjg> <xmx:VMFIXGXB0SH1avPr_4iQL5__NnBpWM7Xl3yBqi35tVERV_b_MHxklg> <xmx:VMFIXK_7heUm65mWVgHGBWXLSw26-gmd4hqfLeo1K9EkxK24Qj0zUw>
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 0F79F1030D; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 14:32:36 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Alissa Cooper <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 14:32:34 -0500
Cc: IETF Tools Development <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Robert Sparks <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] Next (and I think final) version of the Meeting application SoW
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Tools Development list server <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 19:32:40 -0000

Hi Robert,

> On Jan 22, 2019, at 4:10 PM, Robert Sparks <> wrote:
> On 1/22/19 2:55 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> Have we done any serious investigation of whether we could use an off-the-shelf tool like Sched to meet the bulk
> That's the crucial word.
>> of our needs, rather than continuing to develop more bespoke functionality that we have to maintain over time for meeting scheduling and display?
> No, but I don't think it would actually meet the bulk of our needs. We might be able to separate the "building a schedule" part of the app from the "managing materials, displayed agenda, and proceedings" part of the app, but doing so is likely as large as what we are proposing to do now.
>>  I know we think the IETF is a special flower, but in many ways it isn’t, e.g., we have a bunch of tracks and sessions that need to be de-conflicted based on certain criteria and fit into a grid.
> Sure. But there integrating the output of that grid into the meeting materials management stuff we have - are you proposing we don't do that part anymore, or switch to some other commercial conferencing system and only do what it lets you do with materials?

I wasn’t proposing anything, I was just wondering if we had done a thorough investigation, and it sounds like we did a few years ago. I was wondering about this not to compare the specific chunk of work captured in the RFP to the amount of work it would take to switch to something off-the-shelf, because that doesn’t seem like a fair comparison. I was wondering because it seems like over time our maintenance and support story might be simpler if we don’t continue building up bespoke features for ourselves. 

Obviously I haven’t done the investigation myself to know whether any of these services have APIs that let you easily extract meeting materials, agendas, etc. as might be needed if we wanted to use a different service for schedule-building and display than for proceedings.


>> I’m also curious who we expect to consume the improved meeting statistics.
> AFAIK, only the IESG.
>>  As far as I know, no one on the IESG makes use of the existing reports cited in the RFP.
> Alexa -  who keeps asking for this report?
>> Generally I find the datatracker statistics kind of hard to consume for a number of reasons, so I would hesitate to add more functionality there without a compelling justification.
>> Thanks,
>> Alissa
>>> On Jan 17, 2019, at 2:13 PM, Robert Sparks <> wrote:
>>> I've incorporated comments from Russ, and at his suggestion renamed the file using a schema we can follow with the remaining SoWs to cause them to group nicely in Finder.
>>> I believe this is ready to go out for IDIQ bids.
>>> RjS
>>> <sow_2019_meeting_v2.pdf><sow_2019_meeting_v2.docx>_______________________________________________
>>> TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT mailing list