[ietf-nomcom] Experiment in "full transparency"

Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 17 October 2017 15:00 UTC

Return-Path: <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA67F13420F for <ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 08:00:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 iP7cT7n_BU6A for <ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 08:00:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x236.google.com (mail-pf0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::236]) (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 DFC05134239 for <ietf-nomcom@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 08:00:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x236.google.com with SMTP id b79so1538160pfk.5 for <ietf-nomcom@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 08:00:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=hrx+WJR2c/6pgcOv+bT4oTs6lJGVMMVG1vGRImgXCp8=; b=B9lyOfaGEdqFreoM9MEdLBALV76Wp4vQfxQGtRNhqliDdWGb5BiGi9mHwFtFzznmDt FCI/zuKKfrTWj1EMzlSU2lF0a94nZg5Hbnt3EUcbFdUu69gKJCUFanRUbydtGTTeTWmo isa/jfNrQneN56XHm1rRMPy9k/gj9k1yn0Z7xdi55WAEK5yWfZ2zJH+YEjNkL3+SWPWI d0Khe1d8Y/rsIXYWqtBcJXIMg/ihvRg1u02Itqa3knrxKz4rK7h8I7PwArRdX9spZT78 kSGUem4/r3Bfgjd0+FtpH5jGYWV61EgAtvfkhPerj8Cf90t53O15OI6WTulMlxUf/XLZ TJ6g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=hrx+WJR2c/6pgcOv+bT4oTs6lJGVMMVG1vGRImgXCp8=; b=B/bgbaabtQJqCVLFWnj9yPwxC/NLWagZhpT5g+dJSyAk+JsxwRg9Cc5M9YxF+tjdbU oYJeCzs7eJZ+WBKYKK7Ax3j5nYZkAcRuG2C+PKYl7AKoSB1NQOo7M1FOhRzcRFgUHHZi KRsRQrBjainNa1WRY8qDBsnR/ZicfGL4RVe6DC1jSoIvvgviTPdNsyV1xNYO2Rbl4aGP ow/5TWs5u7egYjrHHL9VAWX/goWu3VPTdzoSadPoykssyVkhtEU4x+ioH6L3CdJ6VSku gddvyTMa3h4EenTwk8oxitzQDAcnmxQdh+HY/QRxOBLuExOOiRxx90ouoLnJU/cD2If/ 6knQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaUfT6sE8X7oeeBg7IBN6+UQFE0JpEvY6poApAUXyWXLz+XMbAp6 o7vlbt/xfqMNgj2DICLotZyK8fFWqzDfz63Nzjc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+R0fxT4bQEcQ0Zpum+Uq8ToqeFNTVSm3Fegu5kWS9QDd8OPuVjNN8GMg23ofuUVjQEoKDlwM6p3pt5phuID8ZI=
X-Received: by 10.84.160.226 with SMTP id v31mr6169631plg.302.1508252417143; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 08:00:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.186.194 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 07:59:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:59:36 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHbuEH6=LLgj-uEonv-fWxc=Qz+TshOb8JAOecYpnieFMetMzA@mail.gmail.com>
To: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org, "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-nomcom/sf5smYuLeiJy_6ykBWEuDYBYWHU>
Subject: [ietf-nomcom] Experiment in "full transparency"
X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process <ietf-nomcom.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-nomcom>, <mailto:ietf-nomcom-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-nomcom/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-nomcom@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-nomcom-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom>, <mailto:ietf-nomcom-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 15:00:25 -0000

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