[This document is NCITS/J13 99/008]

	[These minutes were approved after minor amendments
	 at the 14Oct99 J13 meeting.]

			      ==========

     NCITS/J13 teleconference meeting on 7/27/1999 at 10am PDT.

 Kim Barrett [self]
 Chuck Fry, Chris Plaunt [Caelum]
 Steven Haflich, Kevin Layer [Franz]
 Martin Simmons [Harlequin]
 John Mallery [MIT] (others present, unidentified)
 Eric Peterson [MITRE]
 Kent Pitman [self]
 Nick Levine [self]
 Mark Stickel [SRI]
 Shannon Spires, Richard Billington [Sandia]
 Rusty Johnson [Sterling Software]
 Rainer Joswig [Lavielle]
 Eric Dahlman [Colorado State University] (remote from pay phone in Finland!)


(1) Call to order and introductions.  Quick review of effective
    teleconference techniques.

- done

(2) Appointment of a Secretary Pro Tem for the current meeting.

Eric Peterson, backed up by Kevin Layer.

(3) Approval of draft agenda.  This parliamentary item is required by
    NCITS procedures.

- meta issues on (9) only.
- approved by no objection (after small discussion)

(4) Approval of Minutes for May 6, 1999 meeting.
    (Available as http://www.franz.com/~smh/J13/99-002.txt)

- no objections, adopted.

(5) Review of NCITS/J13 status and formal procedures, including chair
    report from officer training session: J13 options for extending or
    modifying the ANS, procedures required for doing so, and what are
    possible other options.  Discussion.

- need project docs for substantive changes
- no substantive technical work before approval of project docs
- two types of things to do to standard:
  - revisions (additions, changes)
  - technical reports
- NCITS is actively modernizing and streamlining procedures (paperless)
- intellectual property issues should be discussed sometime
- will return to this item "later"
- jcm suggested categories: libraries, deprecated, experimental; smh
  and jcm will discuss offline
- pitman had misc anti comments on jcm's idea

(6) Discuss establishment of a J13 fee mechanism to support
    operations, specifically, teleconference and other meeting fees.
    This may require appointment of a treasurer and a 30-day letter
    ballot on fees.

- Would spread cost around.  No conclusions at this time.

(7) The one-list / two-lists issue.  What is the proper degree of
    openness for non-formal, working deliberations?

- Much discussion.  No formal actions.

(8) Discussion of mechanisms for technical deliberation, whether
    plenum or subcommittee.  Possible establishment of a subgroup to
    evaluate alternatives to email.

- Much discussion.  No formal actions.

(9) Review the scope of technical issues raised on the mailing lists.
    How can they be addressed effectively?  How to decide which issues
    are worthy to address?  How to decide which issues are practical
    to address?  Discussion of the "MIT list" and other collections of
    issues.  The intention of this agenda item is _not_ technical
    discussion, although it is impossible to hold a hard line; rather,
    it is to characterize the various kinds of issues, and whether and
    how the committee can justify and address them.

- Much discussion.  No formal actions.

(10) Placeholder to discuss establishment of a subgroup to consider and
    begin drafting any new NCITS Project Proposals.

- An informal committee was established.

(11) Placeholder for consideration of officer appointments.

- Ignored this item.

(12) Announcements and new business.

(13) Evaluation of the teleconference meeting.

(14) Scheduling of future meetings.  At the May 6 1999 meeting there
    was consensus to schedule the next meeting in conjunction with the
    LUGM meeting, Oct 10-13 1999, in San Francisco.  If we keep to
    this plan, we'll need to schedule the precise time(s) consultation
    with the meeting organizers; for now we need to decide whether we
    want a short meeting (perhaps a few hours on one particular
    evening) or whether we want to extend to an additional day.  Also,
    we should consider whether to accommodate by teleconference
    members who cannot attend LUGM.

- Link with LUGM?  After much conversation it is clear it's a good
  idea, even though some people don't agree.
- Tentatively, do after LUGM with no actual overlap so as to keep separate.
  Discussion re 2 or 3 day meeting.  The chair took there to be slight and
  definitely non-unanimous preference for 3 days.  Some reluctance to
  occupy any weekend time.
- General consensus not to allow no phone participation; members should be
  required to attend for real.

- We prefer to have a long meeting, as long as 3 days.
- We won't overlap or intersperse LUGM activities, but
  start e.g. immediately after the LUGM close.
- Tentatively, we will start Weds evening and probably
  finish Fri afternoon.  Still uncertain.
- If the LUGM hotel is really as expensive as it now looks,
  we'll investigate moving to less expensive quarters.
- There was strong feeling we should _not_ accommodate
  anyone by phone, since that removes incentive to attend,
  and more importantly, really changes the character of
  the meeting and modes of interaction.