Subject: Update

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 11:53:07 -0400

A few notes on where we currently stand:

1) We're scheduled to have the problem description document
through WG last call in May.  Obviously that's not going to
happen, but I think we can get it wrapped up pretty quickly
if we hunker down a bit.  There haven't been many comments
on the new version other than a few "well done"s; it would
be helpful if people who haven't read the new version could
take a look at it and raise any issues they discover.  Elwyn
is going to be posting specific questions to the mailing
list for resolution before bringing out the next revision,
which we hope will be the one going into WG last call.

2) We're going to try to close some of the uncontentious
open issues in process document.  I'll be sending out
specific queries

3) We're not ready to close the more contentious issues.  I
realize that we're trying to meet an aggressive schedule,
but the discussion has been productive and there's been no
consensus on at least one of them, and in those cases it
would be premature to cut discussion off.

4) We do have an issue tracker (Bugzilla) that we haven't
started using yet.  To be honest, it's currently hosted on
my home server and I've gotten cold feet about opening it up
to the world.  If someone has a server they'd like to
volunteer, we'd be receptive.

More to follow,

Melinda

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 12:06:04 -0400

--On Wednesday, 21 May, 2003 11:53 -0400 Melinda Shore 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> take a look at it and raise any issues they discover.
>...

Melinda, I think that a large fraction of the notes I've posted 
recently have contained comments of the nature of "this appears 
to be an important problem/issue and it appears to not be 
reflected in the current version of the problem description 
document".  Sometimes, the comments have been even more specific 
than that, pointing out sections in which I would expect the 
issues to be reflected but that don't seem to reflect them.

The most recent of those is the discussion of whether there 
really is a "6+ month spin-up time" on the IESG and whether that 
calls for some radical rethinking of terms of office, structure, 
transition mechanisms and timing, or AD responsibilities.

I suppose I could have tried to write a list of omissions 
against the current document instead, but that just isn't how 
the flow of discussion on the list has been going.  If you need 
that sort of presentation in order to count something as a 
"comment on the new version", it would be really helpful if you, 
as co-chairs, would post --or arrange for someone else to post-- 
reminders that people should explicitly relate discussions to 
the text of the document when those discussions appear to be 
about useful topics but their relationships can't be identified 
easily.

thanks,
     john

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 12:11:31 -0400

> document".

Sorry, should have been clearer.  We're certainly tracking
discussion of new problems as they crop up on the mailing
list and those are being distilled into the new revision of
the document.  Those discussions are about what's not in the
document.  We haven't had much discussion of what *is* in
the document, however, and in the interest of moving the
document along towards WG last call we need to make sure
that the it's getting that kind of review.  

Melinda

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 12:41:14 -0400

Ah.  Thanks for the clarification.
    john

--On Wednesday, 21 May, 2003 12:11 -0400 Melinda Shore 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Melinda, I think that a large fraction of the notes I've
>> posted  recently have contained comments of the nature of
>> "this appears  to be an important problem/issue and it
>> appears to not be  reflected in the current version of the
>> problem description  document".
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 14:41:17 +0200

> that the it's getting that kind of review.

Related to that, I'm a little sad to see the former Appendix
(i.e. the long list of specific problems) consigned to the
archive. There may be a case for a second document that is in
fact the long list, including any new ones that don't make it
into the root causes document.

    Brian