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

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Tue, 21 March 2017 15:38 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
X-Original-To: iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18C3E129B33 for <iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 08:38:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MNMN5sEjYP2V for <iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 08:38:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4E90129AB3 for <iasa20@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 08:36:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1cqLpY-0005B8-6N; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 15:36:16 +0000
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:36:17 -0500
Message-ID: <m2var2ej66.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Cc: iasa20@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <A3C09A9E-AB39-4ABD-8B0B-76C7F3249C45@cooperw.in>
References: <148941528136.16867.3807046327704023886@ietfa.amsl.com> <2938563f-6ad6-57a8-122f-805b8cf41ed5@gmail.com> <A3C09A9E-AB39-4ABD-8B0B-76C7F3249C45@cooperw.in>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/24.5 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-7"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/lXigdlsRNAD98N-BVUPJZ6gFKPI>
Subject: Re: [Iasa20] I-D Action: draft-hall-iasa20-workshops-report-00.txt
X-BeenThere: iasa20@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions relating to reorganising the IETF administrative structures in the so called “IASA 2.0” project. <iasa20.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iasa20>, <mailto:iasa20-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/iasa20/>
List-Post: <mailto:iasa20@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iasa20-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20>, <mailto:iasa20-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 15:38:43 -0000

>> 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.
> ...
> One reason (of several) is the fact that the IAD is an ISOC employee
> means that we end up relying on a multitude of ISOC staff and
> resources solely for the purpose of administering the IETF, and much
> of that reliance is not described or accounted for anywhere. If you
> asked the average IETF participant how many ISOC staff the IAD
> consults with or relies on for support of various kinds, what do you
> think the answer would be? I can tell you that until a few weeks ago
> my guess would have been way low. Their work in support of the IETF
> isn’t documented anywhere, which is natural within the internal
> context of ISOC because they are co-workers who are working with their
> co-worker who happens to be the IAD. But because of the organizational
> blurriness, their work is not transparent to the community.

to me, this is one of the few critical points.  i think the ietf
benefits greatly by not having employees, directly handling cash, etc.
to do so would put us in a very different world.  the tradeoff is a
complex relationship with the isoc or whatever fronts for us.  if we
de-fuzz and clean up that interface, it will be less uncomfortable and
more transparent.

another is the nomcom process, which has a bit of rationality as
opposed to the popularity contests in organizations such as nanog.
but i hope we're not reviewing that area of our structure in this
pass.

randy