Re: Consultation on *revised* IETF LLC Draft Strategic Plan 2020

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Thu, 04 June 2020 10:13 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 5CFF73A0C95; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 03:13:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 apCj_BvLBfoy; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 03:13:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACE153A0C8F; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 03:13:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80AE8BE24; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 11:13:09 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uNZaD4QMRVSt; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 11:13:04 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.244.2.119] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5A300BE2C; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 11:13:04 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1591265584; bh=qsqani1xa6Slq7xwnCbaMN12TSeZ/D+aBdgZHMdRSEs=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=xEWpteJKJQXY1PBaFmfpGXiOdsoAV9+9dfyRZGc5h4M+RCtJG+RFcTbHcSldUST+C QN9txStH/4fqUaTiWiKLWXJ3mtrj7uHq/7gcaVE9pU6eLErYnGLdLg2P7xrd/VFcAS PljJGpS1vTTG6jp1rlF4VJhQOZIo1keE/viXZ1oE=
Subject: Re: Consultation on *revised* IETF LLC Draft Strategic Plan 2020
To: Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <159115348321.13976.12703268950916172390@ietfa.amsl.com> <5435ade6-fdaa-4793-e5cd-438f6a0298d4@cs.tcd.ie> <1FE0EF67-6AC8-424B-8E30-5B85C931B230@ietf.org> <d3626a2f-271a-b85b-35da-32cb9213212a@cs.tcd.ie> <D1E59F95-BB36-4D86-A937-327AE04E8F5F@ietf.org>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Autocrypt: addr=stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQINBFo9UDIBEADUH4ZPcUnX5WWRWO4kEkHea5Y5eEvZjSwe/YA+G0nrTuOU9nemCP5PMvmh 5Cg8gBTyWyN4Z2+O25p9Tja5zUb+vPMWYvOtokRrp46yhFZOmiS5b6kTq0IqYzsEv5HI58S+ QtaFq978CRa4xH9Gi9u4yzUmT03QNIGDXE37honcAM4MOEtEgvw4fVhVWJuyy3w//0F2tzKr EMjmL5VGuD/Q9+G/7abuXiYNNd9ZFjv4625AUWwy+pAh4EKzS1FE7BOZp9daMu9MUQmDqtZU bUv0Q+DnQAB/4tNncejJPz0p2z3MWCp5iSwHiQvytYgatMp34a50l6CWqa13n6vY8VcPlIqO Vz+7L+WiVfxLbeVqBwV+4uL9to9zLF9IyUvl94lCxpscR2kgRgpM6A5LylRDkR6E0oudFnJg b097ZaNyuY1ETghVB5Uir1GCYChs8NUNumTHXiOkuzk+Gs4DAHx/a78YxBolKHi+esLH8r2k 4LyM2lp5FmBKjG7cGcpBGmWavACYEa7rwAadg4uBx9SHMV5i33vDXQUZcmW0vslQ2Is02NMK 7uB7E7HlVE1IM1zNkVTYYGkKreU8DVQu8qNOtPVE/CdaCJ/pbXoYeHz2B1Nvbl9tlyWxn5Xi HzFPJleXc0ksb9SkJokAfwTSZzTxeQPER8la5lsEEPbU/cDTcwARAQABtDJTdGVwaGVuIEZh cnJlbGwgKDIwMTcpIDxzdGVwaGVuLmZhcnJlbGxAY3MudGNkLmllPokCQAQTAQgAKgIbAwUJ CZQmAAULCQgHAgYVCAkKCwIEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAUCWj6jdwIZAQAKCRBasvrxexcr6o7QD/9m x9DPJetmW794RXmNTrbTJ44zc/tJbcLdRBh0KBn9OW/EaAqjDmgNJeCMyJTKr1ywaps8HGUN hLEVkc14NUpgi4/Zkrbi3DmTp25OHj6wXBS5qVMyVynTMEIjOfeFFyxG+48od+Xn7qg6LT7G rHeNf+z/r0v9+8eZ1Ip63kshQDGhhpmRMKu4Ws9ZvTW2ACXkkTFaSGYJj3yIP4R6IgwBYGMz DXFX6nS4LA1s3pcPNxOgrvCyb60AiJZTLcOk/rRrpZtXB1XQc23ZZmrlTkl2HaThL6w3YKdi Ti1NbuMeOxZqtXcUshII45sANm4HuWNTiRh93Bn5bN6ddjgsaXEZBKUBuUaPBl7gQiQJcAlS 3MmGgVS4ZoX8+VaPGpXdQVFyBMRFlOKOC5XJESt7wY0RE2C8PFm+5eywSO/P1fkl9whkMgml 3OEuIQiP2ehRt/HVLMHkoM9CPQ7t6UwdrXrvX+vBZykav8x9U9M6KTgfsXytxUl6Vx5lPMLi 2/Jrsz6Mzh/IVZa3xjhq1OLFSI/tT2ji4FkJDQbO+yYUDhcuqfakDmtWLMxecZsY6O58A/95 8Qni6Xeq+Nh7zJ7wNcQOMoDGj+24di2TX1cKLzdDMWFaWzlNP5dB5VMwS9Wqj1Z6TzKjGjru q8soqohwb2CK9B3wzFg0Bs1iBI+2RuFnxLkCDQRaPVAyARAA+g3R0HzGr/Dl34Y07XqGqzq5 SU0nXIu9u8Ynsxj7gR5qb3HgUWYEWrHW2jHOByXnvkffucf5yzwrsvw8Q8iI8CFHiTYHPpey 4yPVn6R0w/FOMcY70eTIu/k6EEFDlDbs09DtKcrsT9bmN0XoRxITlXwWTufYqUnmS+YkAuk+ TLCtUin7OdaS2uU6Ata3PLQSeM2ZsUQMmYmHPwB9rmf+q2I005AJ9Q1SPQ2KNg/8xOGxo13S VuaSqYRQdpV93RuCOzg4vuXtR+gP0KQrus/P2ZCEPvU9cXF/2MIhXgOz207lv3iE2zGyNXld /n8spvWk+0bH5Zqd9Wcba/rGcBhmX9NKKDARZqjkv/zVEP1X97w1HsNYeUFNcg2lk9zQKb4v l1jx/Uz8ukzH2QNhU4R39dbF/4AwWuSVkGW6bTxHJqGs6YimbfdQqxTzmqFwz3JP0OtXX5q/ 6D4pHwcmJwEiDNzsBLl6skPSQ0Xyq3pua/qAP8MVm+YxCxJQITqZ8qjDLzoe7s9X6FLLC/DA L9kxl5saVSfDbuI3usH/emdtn0NA9/M7nfgih92zD92sl1yQXHT6BDa8xW1j+RU4P+E0wyd7 zgB2UeYgrp2IIcfG+xX2uFG5MJQ/nYfBoiALb0+dQHNHDtFnNGY3Oe8z1M9c5aDG3/s29QbJ +w7hEKKo9YMAEQEAAYkCJQQYAQgADwUCWj1QMgIbDAUJCZQmAAAKCRBasvrxexcr6qwvD/9b Rek3kfN8Q+jGrKl8qwY8HC5s4mhdDJZI/JP2FImf5J2+d5/e8UJ4fcsT79E0/FqX3Z9wZr6h sofPqLh1/YzDsYkZDHTYSGrlWGP/I5kXwUmFnBZHzM3WGrL3S7ZmCYMdudhykxXXjq7M6Do1 oxM8JofrXGtwBTLv5wfvvygJouVCVe87Ge7mCeY5vey1eUi4zSSF1zPpR6gg64w2g4TXM5qt SwkZVOv1g475LsGlYWRuJV8TA67yp1zJI7HkNqCo8KyHX0DPOh9c+Sd9ZX4aqKfqH9HIpnCL AYEgj7vofeix7gM3kQQmwynqq32bQGQBrKJEYp2vfeO30VsVx4dzuuiC5lyjUccVmw5D72J0 FlGrfEm0kw6D1qwyBg0SAMqamKN6XDdjhNAtXIaoA2UMZK/vZGGUKbqTgDdk0fnzOyb2zvXK CiPFKqIPAqKaDHg0JHdGI3KpQdRNLLzgx083EqEc6IAwWA6jSz+6lZDV6XDgF0lYqAYIkg3+ 6OUXUv6plMlwSHquiOc/MQXHfgUP5//Ra5JuiuyCj954FD+MBKIj8eWROfnzyEnBplVHGSDI ZLzL3pvV14dcsoajdeIH45i8DxnVm64BvEFHtLNlnliMrLOrk4shfmWyUqNlzilXN2BTFVFH 4MrnagFdcFnWYp1JPh96ZKjiqBwMv/H0kw==
Message-ID: <8e532d51-9d3f-193b-f7eb-2560099ed58b@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2020 11:13:03 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <D1E59F95-BB36-4D86-A937-327AE04E8F5F@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Z0vf8QDpQpPqHCBsj5mPocCxOtauz3Zy0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/4XNe7BDvunoiDvGruliHa-bYyis>
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: Thu, 04 Jun 2020 10:13:16 -0000

Hiya,

On 04/06/2020 05:41, Jay Daley wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 4/06/2020, at 8:10 AM, Stephen Farrell
>> <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Hiya,
>> 
>> On 03/06/2020 20:43, Jay Daley wrote:
>>> I do not think it is appropriate that we are limited in our
>>> strategy to concepts that every reader understands.
>> 
>> Sorry, my point was not that I didn't understand but that it was
>> either waffly or indicative of over-reach.
> 
> It would be helpful to understand which of those you think it is as
> they are quite different criticisms.

If you read my mail, the comment was that all this
"journey" stuff was either waffly or over-reach and
that ditching the fashionista term and using clear
English would be needed to determine which. I think
that's a clear comment.

> 
>> 
>>> First, I should note that the term "collectively" is something
>>> you have added and not something that comes form this document.
>> 
>> Yes, you have implicitly made that (false) assumption. I just
>> called it out.
>> 
>> In my experience there is often a significant and real difference
>> between what some person perceives to be the 
>> position/opinion/strategy of the IESG and the reality of the
>> situation. An IESG "strategy" could not be that were it not the
>> collective consensus of the IESG.
> 
> I think you misunderstood my misunderstanding of how you used the
> term "collectively".  I thought you meant the IESG, IAB etc getting
> together and collectively agreeing a set of strategic objectives, not
> each making a collective decision.
> 
> Yes I’m sure you’re right there’s a chance that the LLC might
> misperceive the IESG position/opinion/strategy and I’m equally sure
> the IESG will say so if that happens.

That's not the problem. The problem is that the LLC if
it "extrapolates" badly (which is always possible),
because of it's better stability, could end up determining
something the IESG ought have decided. Tail-wagging-dog
is the risk. That's made worse by how you've structured
the document to talk about the LLC extrapolating from a
non-existent thing.

> 
>> 
>>> If you want it formally recognised that those bodies cannot have
>>>  strategic objectives, or cannot have collective strategic 
>>> objectives, then you should really be taking that point of view
>>> to them and asking them to affirm that in a statement rather than
>>> trying to impose that view in a second order document such as
>>> this.
>> That's actually a great example of why your text is wrong. If the
>> upshot of your text were that the IESG or IAB went running about
>> strategising to keep the LLC happy, then we would be entirely in
>> tail-wagging-dog territory. (I can totally get why you may think
>> exactly the opposite about that though.) In any case, building on
>> an assumption known to be false is not only bad planning but also
>> bad logic.
> 
> To summarise your two objections, hopefully using your own words
> accurately:

No. That summaries an example. The problem is with the
bad logic in the document, a point you have not addressed,
and that doesn't require support from others - the logic
is either good or bad not fuzzy.

Cheers,
S.

> 
> You don’t think that the LLC strategy should reference the
> strategic objectives of the IESG, IAB etc because:
> 
> 1.  By having this, the LLC might push the IESG/IAB into running
> about strategising
> 
> 2.  Those bodies cannot, collectively, have an agreed set of such
> "strategic objectives" at any given moment in the sense meant here.
> 
> My response to 1 is that I understand why you think that, though from
> what little I know of the IESG and IAB they appear to have such a
> strong sense of purpose, strong personalities and full workload that
> tail-wagging-dog is a very, very low risk.
> 
> My response to 2 is that we just disagree and I don’t detect any
> support for your position or other indication of a path to resolve
> this and so I think we need to leave it here.
> 
> Jay
> 
>> 
>> Cheers, S.
>> 
>> 
>> <0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc>
>