Re: [Iasa20] I-D Action: draft-hall-iasa20-workshops-report-00.txt

[Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[e-mail]>]

Hi Brian,

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Brian E Carpenter
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for this report, very useful for those who couldn't attend
> the workshops. Here are some personal thoughts, picking on a few points.

Thank you, I'll try and point out places where we might want to change
the text of the report to reflect your feedback (obviously, only part
of your feedback was intended to affect the report text!):

>>    o  The line between the IETF and ISOC is not organizationally clear-
>>       cut,
>
> Better get used to it. Since the IETF is intentionally not incorporated
> and intentionally run by a rough consensus process, that line will never
> be clear-cut.

(a number of places you respond to where the report is quoting slides
presented at the workshop, let me know if that's not clear)

>>    For example, participants noted some items are branded
>>    IETF, like the IETF Journal, are ISOC driven and funded, and are not
>>    directed by the IETF community.
>
> Really? When it started, the IETF Chair (me) reviewed the contents.
> I'm a bit shocked if that is no longer the case.

It would be helpful to know if this is still the case and we could
mention that fact in the text.

>>    ...for example, if the IETF community
>>    wants to change the structure of relationships with sponsors, who has
>>    the authority to make that decision?  IESG?  IAOC?  Community
>>    consensus?  This participant felt that this is unclear.
>
> IAOC. From RFC4071:
>   "The IAD and IAOC are responsible for making all business decisions
>    regarding the IASA.  In particular, the ISOC Board of Trustees shall
>    not have direct influence over the choice of IASA contractors or IETF
>    meeting sponsors.  This restriction is meant to enforce the
>    separation between fund-raising and the actual operation of the
>    standards process."
> But of course we expect the IAOC to seek community input, as in the
> current discussion about meetings policy.

Seems like it would be good to add this reference to the text.

>>    ...IASA has lagged progress of groups like the IESG,
>>    who have made agendas and meetings open.
> ...
>>    Hotel contracts aren't shown due to confidentiality agreements,...
>
> In my experience some years ago, a large proportion of IAOC (and sub-committee)
> discussions were very unsuitable for open access. Contracts and personnel issues
> came up a lot. If meetings were made open, a lot more business would be discussed
> outside the meetings. I'm all for transparent reporting but in this case I just
> don't see open meetings being viable.

This is something we had not yet heard and might be good to put into
the text of the report here.

>>    A Workshop participant noted that, in order to understand how the
>>    committees work, one needs to understand...
>
> I don't understand the point of this. Why does the community need to
> understand how the subcommittees work? They don't answer to the
> community, they answer to the IAOC.

I don't think this commentor said that the community *needs* to
understand how this works, but that when a community member finds
themselves needing to understand some part of it for their role (e.g.,
imagine a new IAOC member trying to make sense of it all), it can be a
challenge.

best, Joe

-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
Chief Technologist, Center for Democracy & Technology [https://www.cdt.org]
1401 K ST NW STE 200, Washington DC 20005-3497
e: [e-mail], p: 202.407.8825, pgp: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key
Fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10  1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871

Tech Prom, CDT's Annual Dinner, is April 20, 2017! https://cdt.org/annual-dinner