PWG> Suggestion for Project Status Updates

PWG> Suggestion for Project Status Updates

PWG> Suggestion for Project Status Updates

Turner, Randy rturner at sharplabs.com
Wed Jan 7 01:57:56 EST 1998


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).


Randy




> -----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
> 
> Don,
> 
> Tom Hastings and I had a discussion this morning concerning how to
> keep 
> the group informed on the status of projects that do not have (or 
> require) a large block of meeting time allocated.  Also, issues may
> have 
> been presented on the mailing list that require a short (no more than
> an 
> 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
> the 
> 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.
> This 
> 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
> the 
> report to a designated representative.)
> 
> Tom has also suggested that a regular block of time (maybe 1 to 2
> hours) 
> be allocated to each project in this category to discuss status and
> any 
> other issues that may have occurred just prior to the meeting.  (IMHO 
> this could result in too much time allocated for this purpose.  But
> the 
> suggestion should be considered.)
> 
> I propose that we allocate a two hour block for this purpose in Maui
> and 
> 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
> the 
>       additional bit to hrPrinterDetectedErrorState as proposed by
> Harry 
>       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
> purpose 
> at the next meeting.
> 
> 
> 	Ron Bergman
> 	Dataproducts Corp.
> 



More information about the Pwg mailing list