This is great idea guys. It would nice on the first day of a
PWG meeting to have a quick status of PWG-related
activities, something like you have suggested. If we don't
do it at the actual face-to-face meetings, then a monthly
email from the PWG chair relating status of PWG
projects would suffice (this should probably be done
anyway for folks who cannot attend the live meetings).
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Bergman [SMTP:rbergma at dpc.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 1998 7:03 PM
> To: don at lexmark.com> Cc: pwg at pwg.org> Subject: PWG> Suggestion for Project Status Updates
>> Tom Hastings and I had a discussion this morning concerning how to
> the group informed on the status of projects that do not have (or
> require) a large block of meeting time allocated. Also, issues may
> been presented on the mailing list that require a short (no more than
> hour) discussion on these same projects.
>> For example, the Printer MIB update has entered the black hole of the
> IETF. It would be nice to have a short report at each meeting as to
> progress, or lack of, regarding the Printer MIB and the big road block
>> that is sometimes known as the Host Resources MIB. Likewise, the Job
> Monitoring MIB is also at the point where only a short status
> presentation is necessary. The same situation will be likely be
> repeated, as projects such as IPP, are submitted to the IETF.
>> One solution would be to allocate a block of time, of no more than two
>> hours (or some reasonable time limit), as a "PWG General" meeting.
> time could also be used to discuss future meeting plans, proposed new
> projects, as well as the status of projects in the above category. (A
>> project status report would not require the attendance of the project
> chairman. The chairman would, however, be responsible for providing
> report to a designated representative.)
>> Tom has also suggested that a regular block of time (maybe 1 to 2
> be allocated to each project in this category to discuss status and
> other issues that may have occurred just prior to the meeting. (IMHO
> this could result in too much time allocated for this purpose. But
> suggestion should be considered.)
>> I propose that we allocate a two hour block for this purpose in Maui
> propose the following agenda with some estimated times;
>> 1. March meeting details and future meetings. (15 minutes)
>> 2. Current status of the Printer MIB and the HR MIB. Can we add
> additional bit to hrPrinterDetectedErrorState as proposed by
> Lewis? (30 minutes)
>> 3. Status report on the Job Monitoring MIB and the Job MIB, Job
> Submission Protocol Mapping Document. (15 minutes)
>> 4. Proposal for Job Monitoring MIB traps. Do we want to pursue?
> (50 minutes)
>> 5. Discussion, was this two hours useful and should we continue?
> (10 minutes)
>> Does this seem reasonable and is there a slot available for this
> at the next meeting.
>>> Ron Bergman
> Dataproducts Corp.