Subject: [Tools-team] Minutes from teleconference 18 Aug 2004

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 20:05:33 +0200

Hi,

	Back home again :-)  Vacation is nice, but so is
being home.

Below are my notes from the teleconference last Wednesday.
Sorry about the delay, my batteries ran out before I got
it sent Wednesday, and I had connectivity problems later.

If I've missed something, please comment to the list.

	Henrik

---------------------------------------------------------

1. Agenda bashing

	Nothing added

2. Comments on minutes from last teleconference.

	No comments

3. Action item review.

     Alex     will start the ID-submission tool draft.

	Nothing from Alex so far.  Henrik will take contact.

     ???    A volunteer is needed for the Tools inventory,
         common components and prioritisation draft.

	No volunteer.  Henrik will take this (I'll check with
	Alex first though)

     Henrik    will mail secretariat re. subdomain delegation

	Done.  The feedback indicates this should go through, to
	be up this week.

     Henrik    will set up shell accounts and web area on his server

	Done.  Have public ssh key for Bill, Larry, Stas, accounts
	enabled.  Missing pub. ssh key for Alex.

     Henrik    will request creation of "[email-masked]" list

	Done, and approved by Harald.  Should be up this week

     Henrik    will solicit requirements from the secretariat
         for the ID-submission tool

	Not done, To do this week

     ???    will start to put together a summary of existing tools,
         so we have it in hand when we announce the discuss list
         and solicit input on new and current tools.

	Henrik/Alex

     Alex    will re-initialise the discussion on the
         [email-masked] list, as a continuation of the
         discussion about needed tools, components, requirements
         etc which was started before IETF-60, but temporarily
         put on hold.

	Not done yet

     ???    As soon as we get the tools-discuss list up, draft an
         announcement to be sent on (my proposal here, should
         there be more/others?) these lists:
             ietf-announce
             wg-chairs

	Larry will take this on.

4. Next steps

     Discussion:

	 - Inventory of possible tools and platforms that could be
	used. Will do this on a Wiki on the website.
	
	Mail archives - are the IETF mail archives in the state they
	should be...
	
	Harald: Current mail archive problems seems to have to do with
	inability to set up file permissions OK
	
	Larry : IMC archives nice.
	
	Larry: We should be clear about who are the users, and how should
	we evaluate
	Ideal would be to set up some kind of survey, (not poll) to ask
	people for input on "what do you think of tools"
	
	Harald: "What do you use the archive for", "What would you like to
	use the archive for"
	
	Larry: Identify who needs what tools for what.   Easy to over-spec
		"nice-to-have" as absolute requirements.  Need to separate
		necessities from "nice to have"
	
	Harald: Rule "Don't announce draft during IETF week" resulted in
		someone refusing to submit draft - loosing track of why
		the rule is there.  What process is the tool supporting
	
	Harald: Larry could you write something about how to evaluate what
		people need and how to find out what they want?

	----
	
	Expect lots of feedback on the discuss list.
	
	Larry: What about tools for activities are more or less outside of
		the process?
	
	Harald:
		* Collection (Inventory) phase
		* Prioritation phase
		* Execution phase
	
	Harald: If we discover that some things would be easier to handle
		if we change the process a little bit, we shouldn't be
		afraid of saying so.
	
	Larry:  Sending out the announcement we should indicate our work
		schedule.
	
	Henrik:	Needs to have overlap of the phases
	
	Harald: Agree
	
	Larry:	Contact Malamud?
	
	Harald:	Very busy at the moment.
	
		This week and next week you may be very busy.  Let him
		review our documents, and then go from there.  Focus on
		getting the drafts out.  Ask Carl for review specifically.

5. Any other business.

     Nothing.

6. Action item summary:

   * Larry will write a first draft of a note to send out to the ietf
     and wgchairs lists about the tools-discuss list.  To be refined
     on the tools-team list.

   * Larry will write a summary on how to find out what people want
     and how to evaluate what is actually needed

   * Henrik will contact Alex

   * Henrik or Alex will start the Tools inventory/prio draft

   * Henrik will add tools.ietf.org to his DNS,  Stano and Harald will
     run secondaries, so this is ready for when delegation is made from
     ietf.org

   * Henrik will solicit ID-submission requirements from Secretariat
	
7. Next meeting:

     Teleconference Wednesday 25 Aug, same time as today, same codes.

_______________________________________________
Tools-team mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-team

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:35:35 -0600 (MDT)

> 	Nothing from Alex so far.  Henrik will take contact.

I have started last week and should be able to release the first 
version this week. I do have a few related questions.

Should I just post the draft to the list first? I can submit the draft 
for publication instead, but since we (as a team) have not reviewed 
the first version, it may be better to gauge initial "direction 
consensus" first.

> 	No volunteer.  Henrik will take this (I'll check with

Thank you, I have no objections and will try to contribute.

> 	Not done, To do this week

Should we discuss and forward the first version of the ID submission 
requirements draft to the secretariat before we solicit comments? Do 
we want their comments to be affected by our initial thoughts on the 
scope and functionality of the tool?

On one hand, we do not want to influence their comments. On the other, 
the draft may help them to express their requirements and/or 
objections better.

N.B. I am back from vacation and should be able to join the next 
conference call. I accidently found a Cisco IP phone and will try to 
figure that out.

Thanks,

Alex.

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 22:49:41 +0200

Alex Rousskov wrote:

> I have started last week and should be able to release the first version 
> this week. I do have a few related questions.
> 
> for publication instead, but since we (as a team) have not reviewed the 
> first version, it may be better to gauge initial "direction consensus"
> first.

Yes, I think posting to the list first would be good.

> Thank you, I have no objections and will try to contribute.

Great, thanks.

> requirements draft to the secretariat before we solicit comments? Do we 
> want their comments to be affected by our initial thoughts on the scope 
> and functionality of the tool?
> 
> the draft may help them to express their requirements and/or objections 
> better.

I believe it's good if the secretariat generates their requirements
independently from us, while the first revision of the draft would
reflect the requirements that we see.  If the secretariat then uses the
draft as input to a second revision of their requirements, that's just
fine, I think.

Barbara is subscribed to the list, and we said that the secretariat
developers would be welcome to subscribe, so they'll see the first
drafts anyhow :-)

> conference call. I accidently found a Cisco IP phone and will try to 

Oh, cool.

Last week's call I made from my SIP phone from the Netherlands, while
on vacation.  Fun!  In general the sound was good, but I think that
the volume adjustments for the different participants maybe worked
better when joining over POTS than when I now went directly into the
conferencing system over IP.  Can't really see why this should be so,
but I had a hard time hearing Bill, who mostly was just a whisper...

	Henrik

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:25:53 +0200

My opinions....

> first version, it may be better to gauge initial "direction consensus"

Yes.

> and functionality of the tool?

Yes. Open communication lines with the secretariat is very important - and 
if we have totally different pictures in our minds when we say "ID 
submission tool", this needs to be surfaced as early as possible.