Re: [arch-d] Call for Feedback on the new proposed structure for Technical Programs and Administrative Support Groups

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

FWIW,

On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 2:29 PM Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Melinda,
>
> I should probably have said that there is a description on the IAB webpage
> about programs (https://www.iab.org/activities/programs/) which however
> is rather out-dated compared to what we do in programs these days. So the
> goal is more transparency and openness in the program itself but also in
> the way we maintain them. There has been no concrete event that this is a
> response to, if that was the question, but I think you know that the IAB
> has been discussing this for a while already.
>

I started my first reply in this thread by saying "This roughly makes sense
to me ...", but since Mirja replied, I should probably have said why.

I think these groups really are different - to mention one type of
difference, the programs were originally set up to involve more people than
just the current IAB (which was the way the IAB discharged its chartered
responsibilities in 2010, when I joined), and one of the things I THINK I'm
seeing is that the technical programs seem to be continuing that movement,
to the point of open membership without approval by IAB vote, while at
least some of the Administrative/Oversight Groups/Programs appropriately
have closed membership (I'm thinking of the Liaison Oversight program and
its predecessor programs during the TMPLS/MPLS-TP wars, or the IANA program
during the spinoff of IANA from US DoC contracting).

I don't think that's the only difference, but I don't know what current IAB
thinking is about other differences.

So, I was guessing that the IAB was thinking of distinctions like that,
which I think are appropriate, between two kinds of programs, so that each
kind of program better understands its expectations.

I hope that's helpful (but Do The Right Thing, of course!).

Best,

Spencer