[Tinyos-alliance]Notes for 1/16

[Philip Levis]

On Jan 16, 2007, at 10:54 AM, dculler wrote:

> Attending: David, Matt, Phil, Adam, Ralph
>

My notes attached.

-------------- next part --------------
Ralph, Matt, Adam, David, Phil

David: Matt will be in charge of rescheduling for February.
       I sent around the articles of incorporation. All of the work we did
last year to translate our intentions into concrete thoughts was valuable.
Allowed us to throw out a lot of the standard boilerplate lawyers are used
to, such as a powerful board. For example, the idea of a Steering Committee,
which is separate from the board, but is actually where the technical action
is.

David: One of the outstanding important issues is the membership agreement.
It's free, but to maintain all that structure, there were a family of issues.
Like, what are you agreeing to?

David: I think the articles are pretty good. We need to do something 
concrete right away. President, Treasurer, Secretary. 

Adam: I think it is clear that David is President.

Phil: Agreed. I am happy to volunteer for any position other people
don't want.

David: It's useful if the Treasurer is local, so why don't you do that.
What about the Secretary?

Matt: I am overwhelmed. It also seems like having someone local would be
good.

David: How about you, Ralph? I think we've volunteered you.

Ralph: I'd need to know what the job is, and check with my management.

David: If we have the geography constraints, there are still a lot of
choices. Moteiv, Berkeley, Santa Cruz. None of these jobs are a huge
load, but let's go through them.

Ralph: It would be good to know all of the positions and what their
different responsibilities are.

Phil: It would be good if the third person were from industry, and also
had some distance from Berkeley.

David: I still need David Gay's tool to pull out all of the source licenses.

Phil: I don't think that such a tool exists, rather than David thought
writing one would not be that big a deal.

David: Let's move on to working groups. We have a family of proposals to
approval. Phil, do you have the list?

Phil: I think we all agreed on resuscitating the testbed working group.
It was moved to active.

Matt: We've exchanged some emails, now that the holidays are over, we're
talking about organizing meetings. I can set up a wiki. I'll move things
back to the old mailing list. I'll need to restart some things from 
scratch.

David: So that's one previously approved. What was the other one in
formulation? It was simulation?

Adam: Sounds good.

Phil: I sent the proposal to the list, there's a chair (Chad Metcalf),
a proposal, a membership, a membership policy, a timeline. I'd like to 
move that we approve the simulation working group.

Matt: Sure.

Adam: Absolutely.

David: So, Phil, will you bring Chad up to speed?

Phil: Sure. 

David: Are there any others?

Phil: There's Deepak and storage. I pinged him to find out the status.
Holiday speed bump and all that.

David: Let's get a working group status. Core?

Phil: Core currently has 3 things on its plate. Low power radio stack
interfaces, radio metadata, and deluge (with net2). Working on TEPs 
right now.

David: net2?

Phil: net2 has a new chair. Rodrigo stepped down, Om has stepped up as
chair.

David: It will be interesting to see how student chairs work out.

Adam: Definitely, more senior students could be OK.

David: 8051 hasn't seemed to come to life.

Adam: We should probably ask Philippe what the status is?

David: That's all for working groups. Let's go on to TEPs.

Phil: 109, 112, 114

David: The SC chooses a shepherd for the review process. The 
person can't be from the producing working group or an author.
Rather than making all of the comments, they are responsible
for gathering and distilling comments.

David: For sensorboards, I guess... Adam, which of these
three would you like?

Adam: I think I could take the Data Acquisition interfaces (114).

David: I'm happy to take one, how about 112. So, 109. So who
is on the steering commitee... I wonder if we could get Khong to
do this, since it's mostly by email anyways. How about we propose
that. I'll work with him to give him guidelines.

Phil: It seems like a document describing the process would be
useful, and I'd like to do that, but it won't happen until
after SIGCOMM (February).

Adam: That would be great.

David: So, TTX. We thought that not having it at Stanford and Berkeley
would be good, but that turned out to be tough. Phil proposed pushing
the timeframe out; we were initially motivated by BEARS, but I think
we can relax that. Phil has proposed June.

Adam: You had talked about outside of the Bay Area, right?

David: That would be good. We'd talked about having something associated
with EWSN. But I think that this would be in addition to the standard
TTX.

Adam: I think that associating with a major conference could reduce the
overhead. Something like IPSN.

Phil: There's already a lot around IPSN.

David: It can be expensive. One nice thing about the venues we've done in 
the past is that they've been free. 

Adam: Another idea. There is this organization, and they have a section
on sensor networks, Ralph, you gave a talk to them south of Silicon Valley.

David: The wireless SIG? 

Adam: Yes, the WSN SIG. Yes, absolutely. Wireless Communication Alliance.
So, just an idea. We could coordinate with them, might be an option.

Ralph: Yeah, I think the WCA would be very interested in this. How many
people do you think it is? 200? We don't have room for that at Crossbow.
The WCA could work, it's big enough.

David: I think the thing to do here is to be flexible on dates, and try
to find the space.

Adam: It is definitely an advantage if there is industry support, let's
try to take advantage of that.

David: Ralph, let's stay in touch and try to figure this out. April or May
would be a good timeframe.

David: Let's say we did it along with IPSN. We could do the 23rd, or the 28th.

Adam: 28th is Saturday, that could be a good idea.

David: We'll have to do some analysis of whether we'll get some pull on the
attendance. 

Matt: It might be crowded around then. As one of the chairs, I think this
could be really good.

David: Where is it going to be?

Matt: Somewhere on the MIT campus. It's at the media lab, I think.

Phil: Being colocated with IPSN's SPOTS and demo session means we might
have a bit of repetition if we follow the old format. So this might be
a slightly different format.

Adam: We could focus on the working groups.

David: Let's move to biweekly calls. I think that weekly is a bit too 
much. So the next call is the 30th, after that we will have rescheduled.

Matt: Let's just figure it out.





 













-------------- next part --------------