Subject: [Tools-team] Minutes for 8 Sep 2004 Telechat

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 19:48:12 +0200

Here are the minutes from today's meeting.

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

1. Agenda bashing

	Add item to talk about deadlines - added to Next Steps.

2. Comments on minutes from last teleconference.

	(Good to use "minutes" in subject of minutes)

3. Action item review.

    * All - give feedback on http://tools.levkowetz.com/

	Received feedback from Alex - please send feedback

    * All - give feedback on next revision of I-D submission tool
      requirements

      * Alex submits current within 24 hours.  Send comments now!

    * Henrik to send announcement once prerequisites are fulfilled.

	Alex made a new proposal of text.  Bill suggested that
	some of the information from Larry's text should go in
	the announcement, too.
      * Larry updates Alex' text.
      * Henrik sends announcement as soon as Alex' draft is in the
        archives.

    * Larry to ask the w3 what software they are using to get peoples
      consent to publish mailing list submissions

	Remains for next week.

    * Henrik to nudge Stas on tools review/discussion wiki page

	Done by Stas - went through all email, copying all 
	mentions of tools on the mailing list.  No evaluation,
	just a list of references.

    * Alex will check up that there's a wiki page set up for the
      framework thoughts/summary.

	Done

    * Alex to send out next revision of draft by Sunday

	Done

    * Henrik to continue the inventory on the web site

	In progress, needs more work.  Wiki link to be removed
	and only used for internal team work for now.

    * Alex - add comments on the announcement draft to the wiki page
      ( http://tools.levkowetz.com/wiki/ToolsTeamAnnouncement )

	Done.

    * Larry, Henrik, Stas - check the announcement draft wiki page

	Done.  
	-- Discussion of the announcement led into Allison mentioning
	the trouble the secretariat is currently having with the
	ticket system.  
	Put tmda in front of RT
	1. if secretariat wants advice on how to make ticket system
	   more useful - reiterate advice "do challenge-response in
	   front of ticket system
	2. do reorgainsation of ietf front - what addresses to use
	   for what.
	Allison mentioned that we could set up an external interface
	as a model of how to handle this - but that would still not
	cut down on the flood of incoming tickets they currently 
	have.

	-- Question to Allison on enforcability of recommendations - 
	the short of it is that we should assume that our recommendation
	of *interfaces* will be enforcable, but not necessarily how
	they are implemented internally.

    * Larry to add a link from the wiki to the mailing lists's copies
      of the meeting minutes.

	Not done - remains for next week.

    * Henrik will follow up on creation of "[email-masked]" list,
      and on the subdomain delegation

	Done, and both in place now.

4. Status of drafts

	Covered above.

5. Next steps

      *	Allison will get information from Harald about wg-chair ticket system
      * Henrik does a one-page writeup of how the ticket system works for 
		 a wg-chair currently.
      * Henrik will solicit input on a wg ticket system from the wg-chairs list
      * The team will propose an interface for wg-chair interaction with ticket system
		- appropriate email address (is email appropriate?)
		- web page 
		- ticket handling details?

      Deadlines:

        20 hours - feedback on I-D submission tool draft
	24 hours - Alex posts the draft
        1 week   - send details for tools for inclusion in tools.ietf.org web pages
	2 weeks  - tools inventory draft ready

6. Any other business.

	(Ticket system problems, covered earlier)

7. Action items, summary

    * All:	give feedback on current revision of I-D submission tool
		requirements - before 12:00 EST tomorrow Thursday

    * Alex:	submits current draft by 15:00 EST tomorrow Thursday

    * Allison:	Get information from Harald about wg-chair ticket system

    * Henrik :	does a one-page writeup of how the ticket system works for 
		a wg-chair currently.

    * Henrik:	After the tools-discuss list announcement has gone out, 
		solicit input on how a ticket system interface for the WG
		chairs should look

    * All:	Propose an interface for wg-chair interaction with ticket system
		- email address
		- web page
		- ticket handling

    * All:	give feedback on http://tools.ietf.org/ - design and content

    * Henrik:	Send announcement of tools-discuss mailing list once the draft
		is available in the archives

    * Larry:	ask the w3 what software they are using to get peoples
		consent to publish mailing list submissions

    * Henrik:	continue the inventory on the web site. Finished by next Tuesday.

    * Larry:	to add a link from the wiki to the mailing lists's copies
		of the meeting minutes.

8. Next meeting:

     Teleconference Wednesday 15 Sep, 16:00 GMT (same time as today).

     Connection details:

	To join the call, dial +1-734-531-0125 and enter PIN 0151989.

	One can also join the call by dialing:
	
	  sip:[email-masked] 

	on a SIP-enabled voice communications client. 

	If the SIP client cannot dial URLs, you can have the conference
	system call you if you have the sip URL for your phone.  Go to

	  https://edial.internet2.edu/call/0151989

	and type in the URL to your phone, and follow the directions.

	The conference service is provided by Stas & internet2.

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

---

From: stanislav shalunov <[email-masked]>
Date: 08 Sep 2004 14:43:17 -0400

The recording of today's call can be found at
http://netflow.internet2.edu/tools/20040908-tools.wav

-- 
Stanislav Shalunov		http://www.internet2.edu/~shalunov/

Letters in this message are closer than they appear.

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 13:23:29 -0600 (MDT)

> 	   more useful - reiterate advice "do challenge-response in

Let's not record a recommendation we may or may not make in the 
future. Challenge-response solution was discussed, but the overall 
scope of the problem is not known yet (IMO); we should make a 
recommendation when we know more about the problems faced by the 
Secretariat.

IMHO, we should be careful to avoid micro-managing macro-level 
interfaces that we do not recommend or approve. Issuing isolated 
advice on pieces of fundamentally broken infrastructure may be 
damaging to TOOLs team communication with the Secretariat and a waste 
of time in general. We are not the Secretariat management team (I 
think).

> 	2. do reorgainsation of ietf front - what addresses to use

Reorganization of ietf front is on our to-do list, but let's not 
record a particular solution (changing addresses) before we have a 
coherent plan in place. To me, it sounded like e-mail interface should 
not be used for most of the tasks discussed during the conference call. 
Recommending micro-level adjustments to e-mail interface may be a 
waste of time and reputation if we are going to move away from that 
interface soon (see above).

Short-term solutions should be cheap and easy to implement. If we are 
to recommend short-term solutions, I would consider recommending 
auto-rejecting all e-mails without a specific keyword in the subject 
or something else that is much simpler to implement than a good 
challenge-response system. However, let's not document any solution 
(including the one I just described) before we know exactly what the 
problem is and whether we are the right group to solve it.

>      * Henrik will solicit input on a wg ticket system from the 

This means that WG ticket system is our second priority, after the ID 
submission tool. If we made that decision, let our priority page 
record that. If we have not, perhaps we should postpone both or the 
last item above until we have some feedback from IETF? In other words, 
are we sure that a WG ticket system the second most important thing to 
improve?

> 		- ticket handling details?

Same as the above comment. I am not against doing this work, but I 
want to make sure we consciously make this prioritization decision, 
even without feedback from IETFers...

Thank you,

Alex.

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 18:04:50 +0200

Hi Alex,

With regards to your first two comments - the minutes are very
abbreviated here, mea culpa - I was recording what Allison said in
numbered items 1 and 2 below, not trying to indicate this as a
recommendation made by the tools team.  

I agree with your comments on the basis of the perception you had
of what the minutes were saying :-)

More further down...

> are we sure that a WG ticket system the second most important thing to 

My understanding is that this prioritation has been requested by 
IESG (through Allison) and I agree with it.  This is reflected in
the prioritization Wiki page I put up yesterday...

> even without feedback from IETFers...

Right.

	Henrik.

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 15:46:36 -0600 (MDT)

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:

On Wednesday,  8 Sep 2004, Alex Rousskov wrote:

>> This means that WG ticket system is our second priority, after the 
>> ID submission tool. If we made that decision, let our priority page 
>> last item above until we have some feedback from IETF? In other 
>> words, are we sure that a WG ticket system the second most 
>> important thing to improve?
>

Should this be reflected in our announcement? That is, should we 
mention that as a second "tool" that we are already committed to work 
on? Or do we want to wait for IETF feedback (if any) first?

Thanks,

Alex.

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:25:02 +0200

Alex Rousskov wrote:

>>> words, are we sure that a WG ticket system the second most important 
>>> thing to improve?
>>
>>
>> My understanding is that this prioritation has been requested by IESG 
>> (through Allison) and I agree with it.  This is reflected in the 
>> prioritization Wiki page I put up yesterday...
> 
> 
> Should this be reflected in our announcement? That is, should we mention 
> that as a second "tool" that we are already committed to work on? Or do 
> we want to wait for IETF feedback (if any) first?

Mmm - maybe too early for that - we don't know exactly what we'll need
to do in this case yet.  I'd actually be fine either way, but i'd guess
that in the absence of other indication, I'd leave it out - for now only.

	Henrik