Re: agenda

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>]

In message <1040990000.1052231639@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no>, Harald Tveit A
lvestrand writes:
>the question came up on the problem-statement list. I see no particular 
>reason why not.
>
>so - to be very precise - should I instruct the secretariat to move/shadow 
>the URL
>
>https://www1.ietf.org/IESG/internal/agenda.html
>
>into an URL like http://www.ietf.org/IESG/agenda.html - and keep it updated?
>
>(I *think* all the URLs are publicly-visible ones - when we turn them into 
>tracker links, we've got to point them at the public tracker for the 
>external agenda and internal tracker for the internal agenda... bother...)
>
>To make a deadline.... if I hear no objections by Thursday evening, I will 
>so instruct.....
>

The issue of the tracker is a real one, and we may be better off if the 
file is copied rather than moved.  I generally work from the Web agenda 
(if I'm not in transit), because it's easier to click on the ballot 
links.

As for Bert's comments -- I suspect that most confidential items we 
have we come under "management items".  I'm not concerned that WG 
charters might be public *if* the proposed chair names aren't included 
-- that's a personnel decision, and even the most open organizations 
generally keep those confidential.

We can make a bigger step towards openness by improving the minutes.  
Right now, they're a list of decisions; issues discussed are not captured.
It will be a lot of work to improve that, since Jackie has her hands 
full just keeping track of the fate of I-Ds, but it's something we 
should think very hard about.

Anyway -- yes, I'm in favor of a public agenda.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)