Re: [Iasa20] draft-haberman-iasa20dt-recs-00.txt

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

> For me, the main things that need improving with IASA
> nearly all relate to transparency and I think that got
> maybe one mention in the draft. (Didn't check back,
> sorry if I've gotten that wrong.) I would have hoped
> that a default-open statement would have been included
> and to see if that'd differ based on the different
> organisational options.

The transparency topic has been high on our
mind, but we’ve struggled to figure out what
exactly to say about that. The default-open
statement is certainly one way forward,
thanks for reminding us of that.

But, what specifically will that include? I suspect
that the devil is in the details. Personnel discussions…
contract awards… sums until an award for a project
is made… negotiation strategies… discussion of
legal issues such as court cases where IETF is
included… there are a fair number of these, even
outside the most discussed topic of hotel contracts.

Would a specification (e.g., RFC) of what’s open and what’s
not open be the ultimate outcome of that approach, or
would you see that as an alternative to the
default-open statement?

> So I'd be interested in the analysis covering which
> of the options might be most transparent. I worry
> there's a big risk that transparency++ might get
> lost if we undertake the two more radical changes
> to the organisation.

Impacts on transparency are clearly a necessary
piece of the analysis. That needs to be added. Thanks.

> 
>> 
>> So, do you have thoughts on what aspects we
>> are missing and which should be documented?
>> Or are you unhappy with the level of detail or
>> analysis of the current options?
> 
> Not sure it's that useful to note but there are
> things with which folks seem generally very happy
> (e.g. AMS staff today) and I don't think the draft
> covers not-breaking-those. So what other things
> do we not want to break? Lack of membership is
> one I'd like to keep, there may be more. So maybe
> consider documenting things we like too?

Good points. Would certainly want to include
a positive statement about things that are currently
working well.

>> 
>>> - I didn't find section 6 clear or convincing but
>>> it's also hard to see how one might document
>>> such an analysis at this point. Maybe when I
>>> read it more closely or we see a presentation in
>>> Prague, it'll be clearer, but as of now, the DT's
>>> analysis isn't that clear to me. It could be that
>>> I change my opinion about IASA++ if/when I do
>>> understand the DT's analysis better, but I'd be
>>> surprised if that were the case.
>> 
>> At this point, we’d love to hear your thoughts
>> on aspects that should be taken into account.
>> Lets worry about what the right conclusion is
>> later.
> 
> Fair enough. But TBH, I think I still need to see
> the presentation in Prague to get what's being
> said in the analysis. I'll try give it another
> read in the meantime if I can and respond further
> but not sure I'll have a chance.

In honesty, the analysis section is very early
text.

Let me turn your statement around a bit. We still
need to hear what you care about in Prague in
order to produce a more complete analysis section :-)

Jari