Re: [Iasa20] Terminology agani: IETF LLC Executive Director versus IETF Executive Direector

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,

Following up on a couple of points here.

> On Dec 19, 2018, at 8:43 AM, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> --On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 11:23 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> I believe that I was one of the first to mention that some
>> older documents referred to the IETF Executive Director as
>> being a direct support role for the IESG, and that this could
>> be confusing. Well, it could still be confusing, but not
>> *very* confusing, and I think we've flushed out most of the
>> troublesome instances in the various documents that are now
>> being updated or obsoleted. In a strict sense John is correct,
>> but the phrase "IETF LLC Executive Director" is a bit too
>> clumsy for comfort. So at the moment I think we're OK. 
> 
> I'm certainly willing to live with that decision as long as a
> non-trivial number of people in addition to the document authors
> hold it.   On the other hand, I have a lot of difficulty
> understanding a logic system in which "IETF LLC Executive
> Director" is a bit too clumsy but "Managing Director, IETF
> Secretariat" is not.  

I think the logic is that the LLC Board has to hire for the executive director position. So the title of that person has an influence as far as recruiting, signaling to candidates what the job involves or how it compares to other roles at similar organizations, and what it looks like on a resume for someone who moves on from the job in the future. None of this applies to Alexa’s IETF-facing title, and she has her own separate AMS title.

> The latter is eight characters longer; is
> a bit of an odd construction for those of us on this side of the
> various ponds; and, if being used with a voice input system, may
> require a distinctive pause at the right place or spelling out
> the punctuation... certainly more than a bit clumsy.
> 
> --On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 22:51 +0000 "Salz, Rich"
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> The only people who will confuse the new terminology with the
>> terminology in the RFC are the greybeards who were around back
>> when all this started.  And in a few years, we're going to be
>> older and confused about how to program our IP fridges anyway
>> :)
> 
> Rich, ignoring as humor any possible aspersions on my beard
> color, my advancing age, and the question of whether using beard
> color as a reference category is sexist..   As I have tried to
> say several times (mostly in notes that I infer no one has read,
> possibly because of length), I am not at all concerned about
> confusion among those who read the new RFC or even within the
> IETF more generally.  For such people, either they will get it
> right or some combination of Portia, Alexa, or the community
> will figure out how to set them right.
> 
> I also assume that, whatever we decide, the WG's list of
> documents that should be updated is correct and we can get the
> those documents right.  If there are omissions, not exactly
> reusing a title makes it easier to detect and then fix them, but
> I don't expect omissions and fixing an IETF document later,
> while it should be embarrassing to the community, is not a huge
> deal.   My concern is, and always has been, someone from the
> outside, perhaps an SDO with whom we work (or one with whom we
> have a sometimes-antagonistic relationship), perhaps some actor
> in the legal arena, perhaps a reporter with sensational
> instincts, or perhaps someone else of those sorts, picking up an
> old agreement or an old document or web page, that mentions the
> old title/role and then either trying to use it and getting
> confused or noticing the confusion.  Should they then wonder
> whether they are being given the runaround and then decide to
> make a fuss about it (or just decide to make a fuss in principle
> or out of malice) that would waste more time than it should,
> damage the IETF's credibility, or both.
> 
> For the same reasons, independent of what the WG decides to do
> about this title, I think the [e-mail] address and links
> pointing to the IAD should either go to the IETF [LLC] Executive
> Director or to an auto-response message or web page that
> explains the situation/ transition and to do some more or less
> forever.   I'd prefer to give the same treatment to
> [e-mail] (an address that at least used to exist) and
> similar references, but that may be more difficult if the title
> is reused.

[e-mail] does not exist but [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> and [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> both do and they point to Portia.

Alissa

> 
> Do I consider those high-risk or even high-likelihood
> possibilities?  No, not particularly.  But I  think it is
> relatively easy to protect against them and, because the
> likelihood is still above zero and the costs of that sort of
> public attack non-trivial should it occur, that doing so is
> worthwhile.
> 
> If people disagree, fine.  Be careful what you wish for.
> 
>     john
> 
> _______________________________________________
> iasa20 mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20