Subject: PWG> Suggestion for Project Status Updates

From: Ron Bergman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 19:03:04 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)

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.

---

From: Harry Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 23:06:31 -0500

I'm not sure we will ALWAYS need a 2 hr block for PWG overview but I agree with
the proposed topics Ron has put forth (below) and I'm in favor of this in Maui.
I also agree that the PWG part of the meeting has dwindled to the point of just
a 15 minute overview of the next meetings, for the most part, and should
probably be lengthened to accommodate brief projects updates.

Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems

[email-masked] on 01/06/98 03:13:54 PM
Please respond to [email-masked] @ internet
To: [email-masked] @ internet
cc: [email-masked] @ internet
Subject: PWG> Suggestion for Project Status Updates

Don,

 Ron Bergman
 Dataproducts Corp.

---

From: "Turner, Randy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 22:57:56 -0800

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:[email-masked]]
> Sent:	Tuesday, January 06, 1998 7:03 PM
> To:	[email-masked]
> Cc:	[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 08:54:10 -0500

Ron, Randy, et al:

I basically agree with everyone's opinion that we should spend some time at
each meeting with an update on the various projects and investiage and
discuss potential new work projects.  I have felt that we have had our
plate full with the projects we have and that e-mail can generally provide
a distribution means for status.  Additionally, it is difficult to pick a
time that allow everyone to participate in the discussion since many only
attend 1 or 2 days of the 5 day meeting.

If there is strong belief that with the winding down of the the PRINTER
MIB, the JOB MIB and IPP (to some degree) we need to spend some time
talking about status and future direction then I would propose doing that
on Wednesday mornings.  This would allow those that attend on 1394 printing
meetings to stay
over night if they wish to particate and would be easy for most other
people to attend as well.  Since IPP now has "blossumed" to two full days,
I don't believe taking a couple of hours on Wednesday morning in Maui for a
PWG discussion would impact IPP's progress.  Afterwards we can discuss
whether this was time well spent.

As such, all project chairmen should prepare a short report on status
including high level open issues, schedule, etc. for presentation on
Wednesday morning.  The presentation should last no more than 10 minutes.

Comments?

**********************************************
* Don Wright                 [email-masked] *
* Product Manager, Strategic Alliances       *
* Lexmark International                      *
* 740 New Circle Rd                          *
* Lexington, Ky 40550                        *
* 606-232-4808 (phone) 606-232-6740 (fax)    *
**********************************************

---

From: Harry Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 10:06:09 -0500

I agree - Wednesday morning appears optimal for PWG status at PWG meetings.

---

From: Ron Bergman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 09:41:37 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)

Don,  

Thanks for your support of my proposal and inclusion of a "PWG General"
slot in the Wednesday meeting.

Although you did not specifically state, I am assuming that a 50 minute
slot will be available to discuss Job Monitoring MIB traps.

	Ron Bergman
	Dataproducts Corp.

---

From: Carl-Uno Manros <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 10:27:50 PST

Don,

I have no problem with putting this first on the Wednesday agenda, I had
put it at the end of Wednesday, but that was just arbitrary.

Carl-Uno

>Wednesday morning.  The presentation should last no more than 10 minutes.
Carl-Uno Manros
Principal Engineer - Advanced Printing Standards - Xerox Corporation
701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
Email: [email-masked]