Re: [admin-discuss] Attempt to diagram the structure of the IETF

[Jay Daley <[e-mail]>]

> On 22/02/2022, at 7:27 PM, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Signed PGP part
> 
> Hiya,
> 
> I do think this effort is worthy and useful. That said...
> 
> On 22/02/2022 03:17, Jay Daley wrote:
>> https://www.ietf.org/media/documents/IETF_Structure_-_February_2022.png
> 
> One comment on the graphic, and one on the thread:
> 
> Graphic: I'd suggest s/structure/super-structure/ in the
> title because...

I understand the point but super-structure seems a bit cryptic.  See below for a different suggestions

> 
> On the thread: I don't think one can fit the concepts of an
> IETF participant nor of the "volunteers" relationship in any
> diagram like this, and those (IMO) are the really central
> concepts that are important in understanding (what I think of
> as) the important players and relationships.
> 
> It is a good thing to better understand how the various
> designed components of superstructure relate, but that'd,
> if taken alone, (which isn't I'm sure the intent at all),
> give a misleading impression.
> 
> But, were there a useful graphical way to indicate that
> all this hinges on participants who choose to volunteer to
> do stuff, then that'd be a useful improvement to the image.

Currently, the community is represented as an attribute of the boxes and that is reflected in the key, where five of the six items have the word community in them.  This to me reflects the underlying principle that the IETF is a community organisation and by default community controlled.  This could be made even clearer by adding community into the title, such as "Community structures of the IETF and inter-related organisations"?

I looked at a number of alternatives for representing the community and settled on the mechanism above for the following reasons:

1.  A separate community box. That would definitely be misleading because it would make it seem as if the community was a separate thing that had connections into these bodies rather than these bodies being drawn from and part of the community.  It would also require a bunch of arrows that would clutter the diagram even further.

2.  A big box round everything except the contracted parts that said Community.  This remains a possibility but is quite hard to do without including contracted roles, such as mine, and that would probably lose the point about community control and participation.


Perhaps this could be made clearer still by replacing the word community here with "Volunteer participant" in the key and possibly the title?

Jay

> 
> Cheers,
> S.
> <OpenPGP_0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc>
> 
> 

--
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[e-mail]