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

["Salz, Rich" <[e-mail]>]

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