Subject: Re: [dns-dir] DNS Directorate @IETF81?

From: Olaf Kolkman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 16:58:59 +0200

On Jun 30, 2011, at 11:47 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:

> 
> I'll be in Quebec. Scheduled is as tight as always. 

me too..
________________________________________________________ 

Olaf M. Kolkman                        NLnet Labs
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 18:17:17 -0400

> this is an attempt to schedule a face-to-face meeting during the Quebec IETF.
> Before initiating a doodle poll, please let me know whether you're going
> and what the general constraints (presence, other fixed directorate meetings)
> there are.

Let me play the curmudgeon for a bit.

This directorate doesn't seem to be doing anything particularly
useful. Not necessarily a problem (there are lots of moribund
directorates, and it seems they tend to stay that way until there is
some reason (and energy/motivation!) to revive them.)

> I believe the agenda can be carried on from last time - revive the
> directorate after assessing the need to the ADs.  More short term
> topics would be a structured review of, e.g., the dane documents and
> the homenet (ex homegate) draft wg charter.

If we had something of substance to discuss, we could talk about
having a meeting. But calling for a meeting in absence of an agenda
does not strike me as particularly helpful. Especially given our
previous history.

Getting reviews is a great thing -- especially if someone else does
them. :-)

Let's not meet if we have not substantive agenda. And let's also not
worry about the fact that we don't meet and aren't the most productive
directorate. I'm on several others that do even less... in fact, one
had a dinner in SF at which it was just socializing. we had no agenda
and did not have anything near a substantive discussion on any
particular topic. (the meal and company was good, though!). :)

Thomas

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 06:49:16 +0200

Then, what about 'Do we need the DNS Directorate?' as a point  of
agenda? 

Personally as an AD I found the input (advice, documents reviews) of the
DNS Directorate as extremely useful. When I got them. 

Regards,

Dan 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Thomas Narten
> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 1:17 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [dns-dir] DNS Directorate @IETF81?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dns-dir mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-dir

---

From: Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 11:32:01 +0200

I think the ROI from the Directorate is quite good. While R is not always obvious or steady, I think R > I very much is.

ADs come and go, some with less DNS clue than others. When I was a new AD (and even after 4 years on the job), I was very happy to have the directorate. We had meetings with agendas, and just hearing the discussion was valuable to my job at the time. If the current ADs and circumstances do not need as much activity, so be it, but DNS is one of those things that, even when we actively try and claim is finished and needs no more help from the IETF, never seems to completely lose the need for some "directing". 

- Mark

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 09:29:38 -0400

> Then, what about 'Do we need the DNS Directorate?' as a point  of

We could have that same conversation about other directorates and a
few WGs as well. But we generally don't bother. More trouble to try
and kill them than to leave them be. Many other things of higher
priority to deal with...

And I'm NOT calling for killing the directorate. But I would like to
see us get out of this mode where every meeting we call for a meeting,
presumably because we are supposed to, and then, not many people show
up, and we do navel gazing at our purpose.

If there were real issues to discuss, I would be fine with a meeting. 

> DNS Directorate as extremely useful. When I got them.

ADs call: kill it, use it as it exists, or try and change it.

Personally, I think we should keep it. But let's quit trying to make
it do things that it has shown little inkling of doing. 

Thomas

---

From: Lars-Johan Liman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 18:08:36 +0200

[email-masked]:
> Dear DNS Directorate members,

> I believe the agenda can be carried on from last time - revive the directorate
> after assessing the need to the ADs.  More short term topics would be a
> structured review of, e.g., the dane documents and the homenet (ex homegate)
> draft wg charter.

I'll be there.

If we go for a meeting, I urge you to not schedule it for Thursday
evening (28th) 4:00-8:00 PM. The reson will hopefully be obvious to you
all very shortly (hours) ... ;-)

				Cheers,
				  /Liman

---

From: Peter Koch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:39:43 +0200

> all very shortly (hours) ... ;-)

i missed this email, so the doodle poll <http://www.doodle.com/gyy83enfggxfiq9a>
includes Thu, but feel free to skip.  Let's have food somewhere and
discuss sans agenda.

-Peter