| # |
List of issues |
care taker |
| 1 |
Changing the naming scheme to remove the -I, -R, -E, and -C designations | |
| 2 |
The GFSG has decided to adopt
the new IETF IPR policies. These must be edited to apply to GGF (note:
this may require additional GGF documents to be created) |
|
| 3 |
Definition of community
practices doc’s |
|
| 4 |
Distinction between the role of
an editor and an author is missing |
|
| 5 |
Process for responding to issues
raised in GFSG review |
|
| 6 |
Possibly a discussion on pdf or
text doc's and where/when appropriate |
|
| 7 |
Adding a third type of group
(application focus groups) |
|
| 8 |
Defining minimum expectations
for non-working groups (research and application-focus) within GGF |
|
| 9 |
Updating the areas to reflect
the current structure. |
|
| 10 |
The life cycle of a WG producing standards documents needs to be revisited. | |
| 11 |
If the gfsg concludes to
re-organize the areas, reflect that in the document (or make the
document independent of the actual names and composition of the area’s) |
|
| 12 |
Possibly add a GEN area under
the chair |
|
| 13 |
The role of GridForge in
document process and in working group action is not clear. - Where is it mandatory ? - where recommended ? - where left to discretion of group/author ? |
|
| 14 |
What does Gridforge mean for the
mailing lists and decision taking? Where are decisions taken? (see also
29) |
|
| 15 |
The NOMCOM process will need to
be evaluated, discussed and documented. |
|
| 16 |
selection of GGF chair,
confirmation of nominations, etc |
|
| 17 |
exit strategy for old GGF chairs | |
| 18 |
decision take power of AL an
AD's, voting, appeal |
|
| 19 |
The following subjects will be
discussed to determine a best practice and to document accordingly: - GGF internal name space (group naming, domain naming, etc.) - GGF external name space (OID’s). |
|
| 20 |
The distinction between the role
of an editor and an author is missing. I like the distinction used for
the roles in the IETF training (WG chair = process and fairness, doc
editor = reconcile comments and track issues, author = provide initial
document and major rewrites.) Do we want to place a limit on the number
of authors (IETF=5 ?) and/or editors ? |
|
| 21 |
Def'n of Community
Practice documents is unclear. |
|
| 22 |
Treatment of drafts should
include general repository for "current" drafts. These drafts should
expire after 6 months or so. Needs to clarify what it means for a draft
to be discussed at GGF. |
|
| 23 |
Preference for text documents
should be enforced and protected. |
|
| 24 |
The process for responding to
issues raised in GFSG review and public comment should be clear and
streamlined to allow for parallel action. |
|
| 25 |
Clarify that we're looking for
positive endorsements as well in the public comment period. |
|
| 26 |
Responsibilities and
expectations on GFSG for review should be clarified and monitored. What
portions of document process should be publicly visible
(all/votes/status changes/...) |
|
| 27 |
Should most parts of the meeting
notes of the GFSG be public |
|
| 28 |
Describe role and usage of a
general announce list? |
|
| 29 |
The role of GridForge in
document process and in working group action is not clear. - Where is it mandatory ? - where recommended ? - where left to discretion of group/author ? |
|
| 30 |
||
| 31 |
||
| 32 |
||
| 33 |
||
| 34 |
||
| 35 |
||
| 36 |
||
| 37 |
||
| 38 |
||
| 39 |