Re: Agenda, version zero

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

Misc ramblings:

> |-----------+--------------------------------------------------+---------|
> | 1030-1115 | Strategy in dealing with others: IEEE, Radius    | Thomas? |
> |           | and 802.11x                                      |         |
> |-----------+--------------------------------------------------+---------|

Hmm, OK.

> |-----------+--------------------------------------------------+---------|
> |           | Document Review: What is the purpose of our      |         |
> |           | review?                                          |         |
> |           | Is the way we do it the Best Way?                |         |
> |           | What is review for IDs via WG/individual/RFC     |         |
> | 1300-1400 | Editor?                                          | Harald  |
> |           | Possible results:                                |         |
> |           | - Changes to procedures                          |         |
> |           | - Efforts to get more people to review on our    |         |
> |           | behalf                                           |         |
> |-----------+--------------------------------------------------+---------|

I expect we will want to talk about things like getting earlier more
meaningful reviews (e.g., sanity checks). This is something we can do
now without formal process changes, and its pretty clear there would
be benefits. Or is that for the later on the agenda?

> |-----------+--------------------------------------------------+---------|
> |           | The AD-Nits checklist: Classifying into          |         |
> |           | "essential" and "nice to have" (if any)          |         |
> |           | Determining that we'll stop anything on the      |         |
> | 1415-1515 | "essential" list.                                | Bert?   |
> |           | What does using "MUST" in an Informational       |         |
> |           | document mean?                                   |         |
> |           |                                                  |         |
> |           | Result: Revised checklist                        |         |
> |-----------+--------------------------------------------------+---------|

Related topic. I think it would be good to get a checklist of things
from the rfc editor that they will check for and that we don't need to
check for ourselves. Also, we should come to better, more clear
agreement on what nits they can deal with easily and we shouldn't make
an issue of. There is unclarity at present about whether something
will get taken care of if we don't flag it and how much of an issue it
is for the RFC editor to "fix" suboptimal formats. IMO, we would
benefit from a less process-heavy way of dealing with nits.

Addition for somewhere: how do we/WGs better manage signal-to-noise
ratio problems on mailing lists (e.g., keith).

Thomas