Re: [I18nrp] Time to take a half-step back? (was: Re: charter -01)

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

Hi John, thanks for your thoughtful post and my apologies about the
delayed reply.

On 8/16/18 8:35 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> Hi.  I think it is time to return to, and think about, the
> purpose of this effort and see where that leaves us.
> 
> I think I can safely claim to be one of the small number of
> people who have been doing a disproportionate share of the work
> in/for the IETF in this loosely-defined area in the last
> quarter-century [1]. I've gotten frustrated enough by the
> relatively recent inability to have useful and constructive
> discussions about and to process documents that I initiated the
> discussions that led to the BOF.  I decided to be fairly quiet
> during the BOF and to remain silent so far in the charter
> discussion to see where the list would take things.  I think it
> is time to say something.
> 
> At least to me, the problem here is that we haven't been able to
> process documents.  I am frankly much more concerned about
> i18n-specific documents than I am about protocol specifications
> that include i18n-issues or provisions, if only because, if the
> foundations are not firm, the references and adaptations cannot
> be satisfactory. 

Your framing of the topic highlights that we have at least two sorts of
work here: strengthening the foundations and, if you will, ensuring
coherence among the full range of IETF specifications that re-use those
foundations.

Different sorts of people might be good at the two sorts of work. More
knowledge and experience is needed to contribute to the foundationalist
efforts, whereas folks with less knowledge and experience can more
easily assist with ongoing coherentist efforts (e.g., reviews and
adaptations).

Whether it's best to attempt both sorts of task in the same team is a
good question. I tend to think it could be fine, as long as we go in
with our eyes open and assign particular tasks based on knowledge and
experience. In addition, doing both sorts of work with the same overall
team gives us more opportunities for learning and mentorship.

> In recent years, we have seen that WGs don't
> get (and, more important, keep) a critical mass of active expert
> participants.  Reviews on IETF Last Calls either get silence or
> a horrible S/N ratio, neither of which helps convince the IESG
> that there is informed community consensus.  We have been
> talking about the importance of recruiting more expertise and
> activity but, with a few notable individual exceptions, have
> made little progress.  In particular, attempted educational
> efforts have either fallen flat or been declined entirely.

I don't think we've done the right sort of sustained educational
efforts. In particular, the way that less knowledgeable and experienced
contributors learn on the job is by interacting with and being mentored
by more knowledgeable and experienced contributors. We haven't tried to
form a true team before, just a random collection of individuals (all of
whom are more knowledgeable and experienced - you especially) who once
in a while come down from on high to dispense their wisdom to spec
authors, working groups, and self-selected IETF participants at large
(e.g., through Sunday tutorials at IETF meetings). Although *that* sort
of educational effort hasn't yielded much fruit, I don't think it's the
sort of educational effort we need in order to be successful.

> While we are making little progress in growing expertise and
> participation, we manage to have the same disfunctional,
> ignorant, and/or irrelevant discussions over and over again and
> do so to the point that some of the existing pool of experts
> have started asking themselves whether we _really_ have to go
> through those issues, and make time-consuming and often
> fruitless efforts to explain them, yet again.  If even a few of
> those experts answer that question with "no, not another time"
> and walk away from the IETF or those issues, the effect is to
> further reduce the pool of available expertise [2].

Here again, I suggest that we try a different approach by building a
team and mentoring folks who are less knowledgeable and experienced but
who have expressed a willingness to learn.

> I'm not optimistic about a directorate helping very much, at
> least unless it comes with clear IESG agreement about more
> status and authority than the typical "review team" and, in
> particular, the ability to move work forward that much of the
> IETF community does not understand [3], not just catch glitches
> or push back on particular efforts. 

Not "just", yes. I believe that by participating in regular reviews and
glitch-catching, and by being involved in the foundation-shoring
efforts, directorate members who are less knowledgeable and experienced
will learn a lot about the topics under consideration. And if we also
document the things that anyone who cares about these topics needs to
learn, we can also do a better job of educating IESG members who might
be new to internationalization.

As to moving forward work that much of the IETF community does not
understand, perhaps the proof is in the pudding. We need to organize,
prioritize, collaborate, and together get some of the foundation-shoring
specs in good enough shape that those who know about these topics feel
they are ready to progress (with, perhaps, more detailed explanatory
writeups than might be generated in other domains). We have several
candidate specs, as mentioned in the run-up to the BoF:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-faltstrom-unicode11/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-freytag-troublesome-characters/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-klensin-idna-5892upd-unicode70/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis/

Given our collective failure to move these specs forward, I'd understand
if some IESG members are skeptical and might not want to grant more
status and authority up front than the typical review team or
directorate has. So let's get to work and show them that we deserve it.

> It would be, IMO,
> irresponsible on the part of the IESG to give it that status in
> the absence of clear plans about how people are recruited for
> (or excluded from) the directorate. 

I agree that clear plans are in order, not only for initial recruiting
but also for talent development as well as ongoing management of the
directorate. Do we have good examples of such plans, or can we leverage
best practices, from existing directorates and review teams?

Although I don't want to say "we'll figure it out as we go along", I'm
also leery of placing requirements on this directorate that no past
directorate has had to meet. Setting out some high-level plans seems
appropriate, however.

> I also have some concerns
> about whether a group that is clearly "in" the ART area and
> whose function is to "assist[s] the Area Directors of the
> Applications and Real-Time Area with regard to
> Internationalization" is going to have sufficient leverage with
> the IESG in those years in which, by happenstance, none of the
> ART ADs are both committed to and comfortable with this work.

That's a matter of managing up and educating the ART ADs.

> However, if the directorate is the best idea we have at this
> point, then let's give it a try -- certainly nothing else seems
> to be working.

With a bit more substantive planning with regard to success criteria,
management, recruiting, training, etc. (I can put together a strawman
proposal soon), I think a directorate is indeed worth trying.

Peter