Subject: Tao notes from USWG

From: Susan Harris <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 09:36:12 -0500 (EST)

Hello everyone - thanks for all of your help with the Tao before & during
the USWG meeting. I'm now in the process of incorporating everyone's
comments. Gary, you kindly agreed to redo section 2.2 on the Newcomer's
Orientation, and to write a new section saying "you don't get lunch or
dinner" that will go between 2.5 and 2.6.

I met with Paul Hoffman after the meeting and passed along everyone's
suggestions.  We had a couple of comments we wanted to bring back to the
group.

We talked at the meeting about section 6 of the Tao, which lists six ways
to contribute to IETF (read, implement, write, open, free, join.) Gary
volunteered to abbreviate the last 3 items a bit and move them into
section 7, "IETF and the Outside World."  Paul urges us, though, to retain
the content of those three items - like the first three in that section,
they're actions that are within our control - "open" and "free" were meant
to be taken as verbs, not nouns.  That is, the reader needs to actively
get their company involved in furthering open standards, and their company
is really a part of the IETF process, not part of the "outside world." So,
how about if we leave section 6 as is but divide it into two parts:  
"what you can do," and "what you can get your company to do"?

We also agreed at the meeting to eliminate 7.2, one of two sections on
the press:

	- 2.8.5 Computer Trade Press
	- 7.2 Press Coverage of the IETF

The group decided to take some of the material from 7.2, put it in 2.8.5,
and eliminate 7.2.  As a counter-suggestion, Paul and I would now
recommend leaving both sections, but keeping 2.8.5 short, so it would
mainly be a pointer to 7.2. Section 2.8.5 is aimed at reporters who are
considering attending a meeting, while the press section in 7.2 seems
appropriate as part of "IETF and the Outside World," since the comments
there are aimed at helping press to write accurate stories about the IETF.

So, comments welcome about those suggested changes.  

Finally, Paul and I wanted to make a suggestion about the review process
for the Tao.  We can expect that when the entire IETF list is notified
about the new doc, typically in a Last Call, we'll get a lot of comments.  
That's good, but we want to give people plenty of time to comment -- more
than would be available in the typical two-week Last Call period.  So, how
about if I plan on sending the draft to USWG in January for another
review, and get your last comments.  Then, about 30 days before the
Minneapolis meeting, April or Steve could send a note to the IETF list
saying something like:

   "this isn't an official Last Call, but we invite you to look over the
    Tao and would especially like comments from 1) seasoned attendees 
    2) people who've never been to an IETF but are planning to come to 
    Minneapolis.  If you feel especially strongly about any part of 
    the draft, feel free to come to the USWG meeting in Minneapolis.  
    After that meeting, we'll put the document in Last Call."

How does that process sound to you?

---

From: Walter Houser <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 09:57:03 -0500

> "what you can do," and "what you can get your company to do"?

I did not read "open" and "free" as verbs. They appeared as adjectives in the
draft TAO. This violated the composition rule of "parallel structure." Paul's
proposal is fine with me (as long as Microsoft does not object ;-) as long as
the result has "parallel construction."

> there are aimed at helping press to write accurate stories about the IETF.

As one of the proponents of combining these paragraphs, I don't feel all that
strongly about it. We need to be clear that 2.8.5 is directed to the press and
7.2 is directed to IETF membership in their dealings with the press. If it
takes more words rather than less, so be it. IMHO this topic deserves it's own
FYI, not just two paragraphs.

> How does that process sound to you?

I don't expect any serious review until Last Call. I suggest we be
conservative in what we send out and liberal in what we receive. (That has a
familiar ring to it :-)

--
Walt Houser, VA Webmaster http://www.va.gov/
VA Privacy Notice for Information Collected from E-mails and Web Forms
http://www.va.gov/privacy/email.asp

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 08:43:19 -0800

>the result has "parallel construction."

Maybe I was trying too hard to stick to a second parallel 
construction: make the verbs one word. "Make open" and "Make free" 
work for me.

>FYI, not just two paragraphs.

There was an aborted attempt to write a "press clues" document. It 
may be better to put it in the Tao because the press are more likely 
to find it there.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: Susan Harris <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 17:14:34 -0500 (EST)

> conservative in what we send out and liberal in what we receive. (That has a

OK - you'd prefer to stick with the standard one- or two-week Last Call?  
IMHO, that wouldn't give people much time to read a fairly long doc.  And
if April or Steve announce the Tao informally before the Minneapolis
meeting, we have the advantage of newbies/oldies reading it, having
comments, and deciding to come to USWG to share their thoughts with the
rest of us :)

---

From: Walter Houser <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 17:46:02 -0500

We should do the last call in mid January and not March when folks are hit with a
flood of documents. I don't mind a pre-release before last call; I just expect
much response. But a little feedback is better than none, so informal release is
fine with me.

---

From: Walter Houser <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 17:58:09 -0500

pardon my failure to carefully proof read my message: I just do not expect much
response ...

---

From: Susan Harris <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 19:27:52 -0500 (EST)

> much response. But a little feedback is better than none, so informal release is

Actually I was thinking of a Last Call a month before the March IETF, so
that people could read the doc and send email comments, or attend USWG in
Minneapolis.

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 17:30:38 -0800

>that people could read the doc and send email comments, or attend USWG in

I agree with Susan here. If we can get Steve Coya to put a pointer to 
the last-call draft in the email responses to people registering for 
Minneapolis, we may get a high response from first-time attendees who 
read the draft before Minneapolis and then tell us after the meeting 
what it didn't tell them. It's a great way to collect very fresh data.

--Paul Hoffman, Director

---

From: Steve Coya <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 08:57:19 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)

Greetings,

First off, note that a Last Call period runs for a MINIMUM of two weeks.
There have been WG Last Calls which have lasted for a month. If you want a
4 weeker, Susan can ask April for such, and April can get convey this to
me. Note also that a last call is not required for Informational
documents.

Special note: I am not recommending against a last call, just making sure
you all understand what is necessary and what is optional :-)

You need a timetable and plan. If you anticipate extensive updates after
Minneapolis, perhaps they should be incorporated prior to an IETF last
call. I also agree with Paul that if you want comments and plan to
incorporate, the last call (of whatever duration) should be sent in
January or February.

Just my nickles worth (and to let you know I AM reading these notes :-)
>>If we can get Steve Coya to put a pointer to the last-call draft in the
>>email responses to people registering for Minneapolis,

I have a problem with this. If I do this for the Tao, other WGs would be
justified asking for similar proccessing. What I CAN (and will) do is make
sure the Meeting Web page points to the I-D instead of the RFC. Will that
suffice?

Steve

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 11:31:35 -0800

>sure the Meeting Web page points to the I-D instead of the RFC. Will that

Suffice, yes, but that won't generate as much fresh advice as we 
might want. I understand your point about other WGs wanting this. "We 
think that every new user will benefit by reading the IPv6 roadmap" 
and "the IAB would like all attendees to read our RFC about foo which 
will be the topic at the plenary" are non-trivial examples supporting 
Steve's argument. However, the Tao is a document that helps make 
everyone's participation in the IETF more valuable to them, and the 
better we make it now, the more people it will help in the future.

April: please consider bringing this up with the IESG as a one-time, 
might-open-the-floodgates proposition. If the IESG thinks it's OK, 
they can ask Steve to add a URL to the current draft in the response 
to anyone registering online. If they don't think it's OK, I'm sure 
we'll understand.

--Paul Hoffman, Director