Re: Revised IETF LLC Draft Strategic Plan 2020 to address feedback raised

Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net> Fri, 29 May 2020 18:34 UTC

Return-Path: <resnick@episteme.net>
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 73AA23A0EC9; Fri, 29 May 2020 11:34:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 AT_5yjW3pqzH; Fri, 29 May 2020 11:34:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from episteme.net (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D8833A0E99; Fri, 29 May 2020 11:34:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A80D6AEB195B; Fri, 29 May 2020 13:34:51 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from episteme.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (episteme.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FONb7fO11ajQ; Fri, 29 May 2020 13:34:50 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from [172.16.1.12] (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) by episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9AB0BAEB1952; Fri, 29 May 2020 13:34:50 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Pete Resnick" <resnick@episteme.net>
To: "Eric Rescorla" <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: "Jay Daley" <jay@ietf.org>, "Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "Martin Thomson" <mt@lowentropy.net>, "Vittorio Bertola" <vittorio.bertola=40open-xchange.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "Deen, Glenn" <Glenn.Deen@nbcuni.com>, "Mirja Kuehlewind" <mirja.kuehlewind@ericsson.com>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Revised IETF LLC Draft Strategic Plan 2020 to address feedback raised
Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 13:34:50 -0500
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.1r5683)
Message-ID: <771ACAB8-48EA-49E6-8792-543F5A4961A9@episteme.net>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBOnddO=uiBzaDC82f+Ot532ArAE-czrSHWVqaDUtakGYA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <FC99250A-2B7A-4A3D-80E3-8DDA513C63D6@ietf.org> <CABcZeBOnddO=uiBzaDC82f+Ot532ArAE-czrSHWVqaDUtakGYA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; markup=markdown
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Be9tBE-TqOVwgoLFDShShiF6vf8>
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: Fri, 29 May 2020 18:34:57 -0000

On 29 May 2020, at 9:37, Eric Rescorla wrote:

>> 6\. To deliver a toolchain that is up-to-date and well regarded by 
>> users.
>
> This seems in conflict with "evidence-led". Suppose the toolchain
> was well-regarded by users but empirically less efficient than
> other toolchains.

I've got no problem with "efficient" being added to list of "up-to-date" 
and "well-regarded", but I wouldn't want to see "well-regarded" removed 
(at least with out something else that captures the right sense). We 
could get a data-driven result that using a particular toolchain is 
incredibly efficient, but if people are unwilling to use it for (perhaps 
irrational) reasons of not liking the look-and-feel of it, or even just 
because it uses a new way of thinking that people are resistant to, that 
weighs against trying to deliver it. I think it's OK for those 
principles to be in tension and the LLC has to use its judgment to 
figure out what's best (in consultation with the community of users, of 
course). But we still want to take that "regard" into account.

And like I said, a different term than "well-regarded" that captures my 
concern is perfectly OK.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best