| # |
List of issues |
care taker |
| 1 |
Changing the naming scheme to remove the -I, -R, -E, and -C designations | All |
| 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) |
DM BN |
| 3 |
Definition of community
practices doc’s is unclear. See also rfc 1818 and 2026 on BCP. |
DS |
| 4 |
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.) | DS |
| 5 |
Review governance draft and look
for separate issues not yet in this list and put them in this list |
BN CdL |
| 6 |
Possibly a discussion on pdf or text doc's and where/when appropriate. Preference for text documents should be enforced and protected. | DS |
| 7 |
Adding a third type of group
(application focus groups) |
JS |
| 8 |
Defining minimum expectations
for non-working groups (research and application-focus) within GGF |
JS |
| 9 |
Updating the areas to reflect
the current structure. |
JS |
| 10 |
The life cycle of a WG producing standards documents needs to be revisited. | JS |
| 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) |
JS |
| 12 |
Possibly add a General - GEN
area with
the GGF chair as AD. |
JS |
| 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 ? |
JS, DS |
| 14 |
What does Gridforge mean for the
mailing lists and decision taking? Where are decisions taken? (see also
29) |
JS DS |
| 15 |
The NOMCOM process will need to
be evaluated, discussed and documented. see also: rfc 2727, 2777, 3777, draft about verifyable doc and successor drafts: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-09.txt http://ietfreport.isoc.org/ids/draft-eastlake-rfc2777bis-selection-04.txt |
BP |
| 16 |
selection of GGF chair,
confirmation of nominations, etc |
JS |
| 17 |
exit strategy for old GGF
chairs. If the ggf chair steps down mid-term, what does that mean for
his position on the gfsg. |
JS |
| 18 |
decision take power of AL an
AD's, voting, appeal |
JS |
| 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 |
Do we want to place a limit on
the number
of authors (IETF=5 ?) and/or editors ? |
DS |
| 21 |
||
| 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. |
DS CdL |
| 23 |
||
| 24 |
The process for responding to
issues raised in GFSG review and public comment should be clear and
streamlined to allow for parallel action. |
DS |
| 25 |
Clarify that we're looking for
positive endorsements as well in the public comment period. |
DS |
| 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/...) |
DS |
| 27 |
Should most parts of the meeting
notes of the GFSG be public |
JS |
| 28 |
Describe role and usage of a
general announce list? |
JS |
| 29 |
||
| 30 |
Relation of the GGF-editor with
the GFSG (ex-officio seat?), term, etc. |
DS GN |
| 31 |
What portions of the document
process should be publicly visible ? |
DS |
| 32 |
Specification of the naming
convention for working drafts. The following was for some time proposed
and told at chairs training: For drafts from WG/RG's: draft-ggf-[acronym]-[short title]-[version].doc Individual submissions: draft-ggf-[author]-[short title]-[version].doc |
DS |
| 33 |
Clarify purpose of <revison
date> field (particularly in GFD) |
DS |
| 34 |
Remove/update "dated" sections
of current document process doc, remove copyright text and IPR to
separate document |
DS |
| 35 |
Clarify what happens to
submissions that don't meet the requirements. |
DS |
| 36 |
||
| 37 |
||
| 38 |
||
| 39 |