Closing the hums

[Melinda Shore]

There's been relatively little discussion of the hums that
were taken at the meeting.  We've got consensus on most
of them (appended).  The two exceptions are 4), where we still
need more text, and 7), where we've got significant dissent but
significant agreement.  However we do have consensus on 1), 2),
3), 5), 6), and 8).

Melinda
-------- 

1) In the discussion of timeliness, we asked for a hum whether
or not the current text in section 2.1 of the problem
statement document is adequate.  The hum was positive (the
text is adequate).

2) In the discussion of ADs who function as WG chairs, we asked
whether this was adequately covered in section 2.6.6 of the
problem statement document.  The hum indicated that those
present feel that it is.

3) In the discussion of the IETF's scope, the question was
whether or not the existing text in the problem statement
document sufficiently addressed the issue.  The hum
indicated that those present felt it does.

4) In the discussion of whether or not there's a problem
accomodating ESL speakers, the discussion broadened a bit to
cover cultural issues, the hum indicated that those present
felt that we needed more text on this issue.

5) In the discussion of whether or not the existing IETF
document format is a problem, the hum indicated that those
present felt that it is not.

6) We took a hum to see if those present felt that the process
document is headed in the right direction.  The hum
indicated that they do.

7) We took a hum to see if those present felt that we need to
define a process to identify values, mission, scope, and
goals.  The hum was split.

8) We took a hum to see when work should start on the
short-term solutions proposals in the process document.  The
options were 1) when the problem statement is approved, 2)
when the process document is approved, and 3) now.  The hum
was overwhelmingly in favor of "now."