Re: [ietf-nomcom] Experiment in "full transparency"

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

Thank you.

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Salz, Rich <[e-mail]> wrote:
> I agree, I mis-summarized what you said.
>
> I hope the important point -- that I learned something from our conversation – doesn’t get lost.
>
> On 10/17/17, 11:27 AM, "Kathleen Moriarty" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     Rich,
>
>     It was a misquote and I'm not embarrassed as I never said we should
>     start up new WGs that don't have value. I felt it was important to
>     clarify since my thoughts are very different from your statement. I do
>     believe in the work of the WGs for which I am the responsible AD and
>     have spent the time to understand the importance of their work.
>
>     Best,
>     Kathleen
>
>     On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Salz, Rich <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     > Kathleen,
>     >
>     > I apologize if I embarrassed you in any way.
>     >
>     > On 10/17/17, 11:00 AM, "Kathleen Moriarty" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     >
>     >     Hello,
>     >
>     >     Since Rich's submission includes comments from our private
>     >     conversation, I'll rehash the conversation to clarify my the points I
>     >     made with some (not all) background on my thinking.
>     >
>     >     I had asked Rich what he was interested to do as AD.  He responded
>     >     that he would close down I2NSF first.  As responsible AD for that WG,
>     >     I was surprised and tried to explain the value of the work as it
>     >     probably wasn't an area of expertise for him.  As such, my response
>     >     started off with something along the lines of customers brought that
>     >     work into the IETF and we rarely get customers with a problem coming.
>     >     Then I explained the value of the work that is coming from the group
>     >     with an example of a draft that was adopted shortly after we spoke.
>     >     The draft automates provisioning of IPsec sessions within a hosted
>     >     service provider environment.  Many similar drafts will follow to
>     >     remotely provision security services.
>     >
>     >     Side note: having been a CISO and been responsible for enterprise
>     >     security, being able to provision your security infrastructure and
>     >     deploy security controls for your hosted environments will be a big
>     >     step forward for many. The enterprises ability to generate reports on
>     >     their security controls will help for their internal security
>     >     assessments as well as internal/external audits. I would hope any new
>     >     AD would take the time to understand work they may be managing before
>     >     making decisions to close it down.  Maybe he would do that, but it
>     >     might be a question to dig into more.
>     >
>     >     Then I explained that with new work comes new people to the IETF.  In
>     >     the case of I2NSF, they are engaging in multiple WGs and that's a
>     >     really positive thing.  Having customers engaged early in the process
>     >     will only improve the outcome.  Then I went into numbers and
>     >     apparently, that's what stuck in Rich's mind and not that I see the
>     >     work of I2NSF as valuable.  With 10 new people for a WG across 130
>     >     some odd WGs, we have over 1000 active people contributing to the
>     >     IETF.  It does bring in new people as as work closes down, others
>     >     leave.
>     >
>     >     IMO, it's great that some people engaging in new WGs understand the
>     >     IETF way and begin to contribute in other WGs, review work of others
>     >     so they in turn have their work reviewed and improved.
>     >
>     >     In "full transparency", that's just a few of my thoughts on this
>     >     complicated topic.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >     --
>     >
>     >     Best regards,
>     >     Kathleen
>     >
>     >
>
>
>
>     --
>
>     Best regards,
>     Kathleen
>
>



-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen