Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback

Mary B <mary.h.barnes@gmail.com> Sat, 09 November 2019 14:28 UTC

Return-Path: <mary.h.barnes@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9D171200F7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 06:28:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 62xg0JorxCvo; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 06:28:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-il1-x12a.google.com (mail-il1-x12a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12a]) (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 DC9C51200C5; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 06:28:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-il1-x12a.google.com with SMTP id m5so7803119ilq.0; Sat, 09 Nov 2019 06:28:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ofP2KrL1afEJq5wwE2OMCHiSRqkMfRMKRux8SWLtzWM=; b=EQLt79o6l1Rd67y5m4ujJVcRB7F+skwbm8hx20JTf5uoTEZZMaV8l2faXVCDwTcq10 219BSCJXFfwB87sTQV3gym1/DDH7RBbhEZdANB2XbuZgFpE43FDOqskhOVE3Mh+EsHCd 2lsgsF8ePeP7CMhSvO+52x4KdHeIEYIp2QifTrxAp/p0W6aREjGIBBebRJm6881u838v i6U6tjv53dx3qV4uo+dbalnxvtncuftWWXpUIEtSuWS3oTkQDDHLAhEVf0Cdlap5Wy+r ATeQhvfeoFinXDDQs4J2gF6q8QOhWBaBVQCTYWF1bgiX1VaH5UuR+lU/WIbb/32vrAnI WlBA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ofP2KrL1afEJq5wwE2OMCHiSRqkMfRMKRux8SWLtzWM=; b=UNh2zCbPQOjzduUqAG4IR2sB4mMn6+weRWxc2UipnHVEcV6oxTJxkhvpldDI/7feH6 5ybh9xSfqR6n1NkPre47C9DxdgmISBC33V0m/eNocYOMD6x2s2ilB/QNo0kIeVOjjzUX Qlxg8/tuL3nmlhsgni4Yqhndv4wO4WwZHAwY6auUfQ1v+wIvl9675Z+5LyrTIhNfnYbQ QWPrIm1c5L34G1bq/cCu8LH5wg32CspylSqXE+cM9zMM7RLRn2cRFUcbXJ5DnKF+o5Sk pIiq7p7rPH/3rCL5u6IEymzXYsAqxiJFBkurGeNvoCEve171pYbOGOB9k8EOrrcQdA0+ 2j0g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWqb+x2rPJFd2+/r/qPlcnUpj43NKTPyOBbMCG4pai8LttQ23bh sTQ4dUg7n+v86FVNiTvd843dLcYKVV3xOvlwR4o=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxLiFeNDGKV8R7N+T5txQTmpaeDNIICnJSLNpIcTU/I+FvsGdXYJ/WGkX3gVZ8xZdYiFUpQdcx84HfwOWttNYE=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:1612:: with SMTP id r18mr18741123ill.60.1573309684029; Sat, 09 Nov 2019 06:28:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <157279399807.13506.13363770981495597049.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <0EF64763-BA25-468A-B387-91445A61D318@gmail.com> <CAJU8_nUovmFmgNiYx0ez_1f+GPdU9xGViDYWfowEEomrn0pyDw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1911040841160.27600@bofh.nohats.ca> <CE06CC6D-E37F-4C90-B782-D14B1D715D4B@cable.comcast.com> <38E47448-63B4-4A5D-8A9D-3AB890EBDDDD@akamai.com> <20191105155759.GC53355@widor3.jlc.net> <A0FD0FB4731A420424C65431@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <A0FD0FB4731A420424C65431@PSB>
From: Mary B <mary.h.barnes@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 08:27:52 -0600
Message-ID: <CABmDk8n3HUfDSssFM3QpDaDYY7whGTHb9+1GEiJv436OuctcTg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback
To: John C Klensin <john@jck.com>
Cc: John Leslie <john@widor3.jlc.net>, NomCom Chair 2019 <nomcom-chair-2019@ietf.org>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d69dbd0596eab492"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/1MtaJKbUwTdnGpGL0fdPj8LGfDs>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2019 14:28:07 -0000

In DISPATCH WG, the whole point is to do a better job considering new work
before chartering or even progressing as AD sponsored.  We have told
several folks that there was no interest in their work at IETF.   Of
course, they then go the ISE route, which honestly I don't necessarily have
an issue with, but that work does come back to someone in the IETF with
expertise in that area to do a review and as I'm recalling ADs have to
consider whether there's any conflict.   So, yes, it's really hard, if not
impossible to tell people we're not going to spend any cycles on their pet
project.  And, unfortunately, it also depends upon who is bringing in the
work.  We are not the meritocracy that many think we are for several
reasons.

Regards,
Mary.

On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 8:13 AM John C Klensin <john@jck.com>; wrote:

> (top post)
>
> Let me add one additional comment to John's description of the
> problem, which which I largely agree. He suggested that it had
> become "entirely too difficult to say no to any new-group
> proposal".   I suggest that it has gotten even more difficult to
> say no to anything emerging from a working group, no matter how
> ill-conceived.  Statistics about how long documents were sitting
> in IESG evaluation, waiting for AD, or waiting for new draft
> states might be very illuminating about this.
>
> best,
>   john
>
>
> --On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 10:57 -0500 John Leslie
> <john@widor3.jlc.net>; wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 07:54:52PM +0000, Salz, Rich wrote:
> >>
> >> I wonder what people think would break if we moved to 5 AD's
> >> per area, and they could divide the WG's and IESG concalls
> >> amongst themselves?
> >
> >    The whole process would break. :^(
> >
> >    (I don't know whether that's good or bad...)
> >
> >    Beyond question, the workload has become oppressive.
> >
> >    Different IETF-Chairs have different approaches. Adapting
> > to these changes, IMHO, has been challenging for IESG members.
> >
> >    But the long-term trend has been to make it entirely too
> > difficult to say no to any new-group proposal. A pair of
> > WG-chairs is appointed, and the AD's don't have time to follow
> > the actual process.
> >
> >    Some WGCs listen very carefully to AD advice; others don't.
> > Some ADs give very good advice early; others don't.
> >
> >    But there's an endemic problem: enough of the hoi-polloi
> > see each WG as the only possible way to "solve" their problem;
> > and they develop tunnel vision. Thus anyone other than the AD
> > who points out a problem is facing a cliff-like wall of
> > resistance.
> >
> >    This leads to problems entombed in published RFCs.
> >
> >    It is rare for these problems to be solved -- ever.
> >
> >    Beating your head against these entombed problems
> > _seriously_ reduces the enthusiasm of ordinary IETF-ers to
> > devote full-time to our process.
> >
> >    :^( :^( :^(
> >
> >    (Having basically retired from my full-time job, I have
> > perhaps enough time available to work on this, but nowhere
> > near enough money to cover $50,000 per year of out-of pocket
> > expenses.) (Also, I hate air travel!)
> >
> >    But perhaps, somebody else will explore alternatives to
> > selecting only employer-sponsored folks for the IESG...
> >
> > --
> > John Leslie <john@jlc.net>;
> >
>
>
>
>
>