====== Forum Infrastructure Working Group meeting at CABF F2F 46 ======


===== DRAFT MINUTES—Not Yet Approved =====
Notetaker: Chris K. SSL.com 

Noted participants: Jos, Dimitris (DZ), Rich Smith, Wayne Thayer, Ben Wilson, Ryan Sleevi, Curt Spann 

===== 

Jos takes the floor. Call to order. Approval of minutes tabled for the next meeting since the draft minutes have not been posted yet. 

Items for consideration: 

1) WIKI MIGRATION - Jos: test has been up, testing of migration = next phase (wiki to test server) planned (later: Damien notes ) 

Q abt infrastructure for wiki - which organization can supply hosting: open question. Amazon requests info re: requirements. 

2) DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT 

- Request for demo of [[:GitHub|GitHub]] for ballot creation - Jos offers to run a Git 101 session Thursday, Wayne notes that workflow/redline demos scheduled for Wed. - Q from Rich Smith: do we guarantee consistency in redlining? Wayne: q he THOUGHT he was going to recv - how to harmonize redline and ballot language, suggests changing bylaws to allow for the GH redline itself to be the item voted upon. Jos Q: any additional formal process needed for GH correction in course of voting/discussion? DZ: discussion needed to ensure GH canonical version acceptable. Ben: notes that a batch for minor language error correction circulation may be required. Jos: suggests that the GH/markdown version is canonical, batching for a vote to update via ballot. 

(Further discussion of migration ensues, including testing migration as poss. Thursday topic for hackathon.) 

DZ: Remote participant notes that F2F infrastructure requires use of microphone. 

Jos yields time back to chair. 

DZ: Notes the issue of re-reading bylaws can be difficult given multiple WGs 

Sleevi: Charter/structure of WG vs subcommittees discussed, notes that WGs include specific companies w/specific surrender of IP rights. 

Jos/DZ/Sleevi: discuss that Infrastructure WG could convert to a subcommittee w/IP commitment under plenary? when/if/as bylaws modified to allow for this. 

Ben: sign-in sheet? 

Jos: notes that this is a good question going forward, as nature of CABF F2F sessions has changed from Ye Olde Dayes. 

Jos shall append companies/representatives 

Tim: notes that repeating questions helps remote participants, and WG IP acceptance 

DZ: legal opinion was rendered that antitrust statement needed for each WG, but would welcome another opinion 

Sleevi: Google believes that antitrust statements important for each WG (as sep. meeting) 

Ben: Possibly streamlined/abbreviated method of accepting anti-trust statements? 

Sleevi: IETF Notewell as a method/model of streamlining similar requirements 

Jos: Notes that growth process will lead to more issues/questions/methods which will evolve to meet needs. 

Curt: do we need separate [[:WebEx|WebEx]] sessions for each WG? (Asking as host, quite likely.) 

Jos: quite likely, for discussion - but then: 

Sleevi: logistical provisioning is extension of physical space, but should be considered. Nothing in bylaws *prohibits* chair from inviting non-WG members to "observe" any WG session. 

Jos: Suggests noting in bylaws: F2F and remote participants operate under identical constraints 

Sleevi: doesn't believe [[:WebEx|WebEx]] starting/stopping required, photo policy suggests that remote participants distinguish themselves 

DZ/Jos notes that CS WG will lead to even more issues/questions. 

Jos also notes that CABF general questions list best solution - DZ notes per bylaws, incoming questions should be distributed to chair of appropriate WG for resolution 

Jos: mailing list titles note - WG vs WG-MGMT(?) 

Tim: bylaws only allow for acceptance of questions by the forum as a whole, proly best to amend bylaws to allow (for instance) CS WG questions to be forwarded/declared to move to the CS WG for action (to allow IP questions to be best directed). 

Jos: adjourns mtg at 10:06