Sunday notes, unedited

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>]

Here are my raw notes from our Sunday meeting.

Jacqueline, do you have notes to share too?

                      Harald

1000 Welcome, introductions all around

Agenda bashing - no change

Introduction of Barbara Fuller
"my major goal is to work with the secretariat to make things as efficient 
as possible for you"
bfuller@foretec.com

Setting the time & place of the IESG retreat
April 29-30, Washington area. Jacqueline, Allison and Leslie to figure out 
possible options for location, and report back on Thursday morning.

1010 Procedures of the IESG

a brief run-through of what we do for the new members
onscreen demo of IESG web page and ID-tracker
time to ask questions
ietf-action@ietf.org
iesg-secretary@ietf.org

1030 Sub-IP area discussion

- What is the IETF's goal in the sub-IP space?
- What technologies need to be / work best under IETF control?
- What's the best organization to achieve that?
- What's the group dynamic that allows the IETF to do that?
Leaders: Bert, Scott and Alex

So far, the opinion of the IESG is that we should get the groups that 
survive into other areas in 3-6 months (first within 3 months, last less 
than 6 months).
The IESG needs to socialize this with the chairs & others this week, and 
discuss this again on Friday morning.
Note: the division between MPLS and CCAMP may need to be revisited.
The directorate has been good-when-pushed, but not self-energized.
Action Bert & Alex: Prepare a written plan for IESG telechat 2 weeks from 
now.

1130 Lunch break - Secretariat to provide sandwiches

1200 Problem-statement, IESG charter and other reorg issues

- Do we think the IESG charter is accurate-as-of-now?
Missing stuff - see Margaret comments. Otherwise accurate.
One problematic - how to describe accurately what "review" is, without 
triggering Yet Another Debate about the goals of the IETF?
There's a conceptual problem with the IESG review of non-WG documents....
Note: Make sure it accurately says "current - not future".
- Do we think the question of BCP/Info publication matters?
What will the use of the document be?
How will the status affect that?
"This is what we are doing/What the community thinks we are doing" is OK 
with Info.
It should be complete enough to inform the community.
Note: send the Last Call to ietf-announce, problem-statement and poised.
Going INFO will avoid the problem/solution-statement discussion. That's OK.
- What are the IESGers' thoughts about the problem-statement draft?
- What should the IESG (as IESG) do about it?
Allison: "People say that we are sounding defensive. We shouldn't be - be 
"cool""
Thomas: A lot of built-up frustration on long-delayed things. We should 
develop tools that allow us to show us what's stuck and for how long.
Action item on Bill: "Send it again, Bill"
Allison: Need to be able to see what is happening - email triggers would 
help.
Some 6-month-old documents are because of AD cycles. This is an IETF/IESG 
level problem, and we need to make sure this problem is known and addressed.
Feeding the discussion: Listen, make sure we show that we know there are 
issues, participate. "We don't seem to need to help them surface issues".

Leader: Harald

1300 Changes we need to do to how we work, independent of the long term

- Handling of liaison statements.
Some liaison statements request and expect a reply - addressing the 
questions in the document, not just acknowledging receipt.
Suggestion: only accept statements in I-D format. May be too 
simplistic/high overhead for complex/very simple.
Bert: Process won't help in sub-ip, because the issues are in technology 
differences, not in process.
Thomas: Maybe respond with a "this is what you can expect to see happen" 
mail - and then follow that up.
Bert: Sometimes need IETF consensus about whether or not to respond - some 
Sub-IP players say "this is stupid. ignore them."
Discussion on what to do about liaison statements that come from 
organizations we don't have liaisons with. First statements can go to the 
IESG who points out that they don't have a liaison with us - second & 
subsequent can go to /dev/null.
ACTION ITEMS:
- Liaisons should be responsible for liaison statements
- We need to consider what we can do in tool support (trouble-tickets, 
tracker) to make it easier for the liaisons to keep track.
problem if an AD is also a liaison, and presents a liaison to a WG - the 
other org should be responsible for presenting it to the WG.....

- AD review of documents taking time. What's the problem?
Reasons - AD overload, nonresponsive author, AD in two minds....
External problem - AD review state is "not appropriate"? (Margaret) - we 
agree that AD review taking a long time is not appropriate, but asking to 
bypass it is not right either.
Ted: "the initial review being delegated to responsible AD means that the 
AD in AD review is acting on behalf of the IESG" - better formalism?
Erik: The IESG doesn't see the feedback in AD review state - might be OK 
with reflecting in the tracker.
Rob: The main issue is with things getting stuck, without transparency, and 
hinged on one AD.
Scott: The internal IESG process is intentionally not documented in 2026...
Suggestion: At times of overload/lack of info and so on - ask for help; 
reassign!!!!
The "subscribe to a document" feature of the tracker is URGENTLY requested!
(for both ADs and for real humans!)

- Use, care and feeding of directorates.
"A directorate with one catalyst/initiative-taker tends to remain alive - a 
directorate with too many tends to spin out of control".
Getting members out of a directorate is tough.
Jeff: "It would be nice if we agree that we let people know when they're on 
& off"....
YES!
Allison: It confers some benefit on the members - they ought to do some 
work in exchange..

1400 Wrap up, and review of work items to be taken away
Nothing here....