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

Eric Rescorla <> Fri, 29 May 2020 21:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BCFB3A107E for <>; Fri, 29 May 2020 14:00:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5GxDbXys7m7H for <>; Fri, 29 May 2020 14:00:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF8D23A1080 for <>; Fri, 29 May 2020 14:00:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id z6so874834ljm.13 for <>; Fri, 29 May 2020 14:00:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=REAC7LKgOu2jJakvvgCxMpcG0Dahe89XMX/kYGcvU0A=; b=QmQtka2gGKmXZxSEiX2qHRrehXbkehVjfDkaS5inpBvcHfzfMrEFMWD5vr8qP257TE HnfA6zm0WZ/X8r7nyYkoYjLyTR49il+r01CZLoEymsO84hwojTiM47uKOt2CMqHbwshk pTzM/nE9x+ASb70GW27dHZXumhKFWdmBADTAOssUrA8/AY2DM+ufWxZEJJpBFW5GAn7j lOeo46SPH18Dp5bK5fNhpV717fPEE8T/BQRR253N+rLyhg2IHIyUM4aCZyUKeEsU92Ed 4/9eebFKSxjSXSURx7fjM0KbX8iRksPAaVfIMKXQdGNxCIpwzFtDWmCbLnTNpHaRd0py WO7w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=REAC7LKgOu2jJakvvgCxMpcG0Dahe89XMX/kYGcvU0A=; b=tgrow3D4PZsjpCoFrqIghJvxB1bHG3afYLsmxtkSNzvdLx945X7dGPoav3x/YDzFWv vlpiw6EeefbqvQASYtnCwwaqyZOo8ZpbwJXYo49ukatdHS7z2lCYGlJ9o3aEl3cSkGxP iB97GYj2P0acF2xzf+CY1jwSDeTwj/O6S8E6LjOGmsIvsc2VJir6B8nB9Uv3/pdKvo15 mVC86BIh4LPKy0FCyml6QtHs1zol4RZjPulDLKczSoFOOCJaQbUetsOwAIBZp2TsPET4 R1bCosKUIRUn1WRmDvqgi1GkA6Y5Ia4Pbw09rvhwrHgVv/7wN4KdzpqVKK13YKhdsNWe 6THA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530SWSUub4Uja0q3vtE95j2I78W8sFPJg/iY5JEc3SBCs/zlsLZy bd5xGHHEaOGaq06YLxN+los0k5T6MCJzhSepqBa+Qk7Ozfo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyWbUVhyMHkCXFam0+JlkeEJr/7Bis6lbAFlPVgMJRWxo0OwbYK2E9UaVd9qaqclyVLk8m/4NBYg/iAT+QXiVE=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b4e2:: with SMTP id s2mr4562027ljm.17.1590786027259; Fri, 29 May 2020 14:00:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Eric Rescorla <>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 13:59:51 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Revised IETF LLC Draft Strategic Plan 2020 to address feedback raised
To: Jay Daley <>
Cc: ietf <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000119cd805a6cfbcca"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 21:00:42 -0000

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 1:37 PM Jay Daley <> wrote:

> Eric
> On 30/05/2020, at 2:38 AM, Eric Rescorla <> wrote:
> Jay,
> Thanks for sending this. Some comments below. I've also sent
> you a PR to convert the tables to Markdown, which would
> make this rather easier to read.
> I personally find html tables far easier to read and manipulate than
> markdown tables, which is why I used them but I’ll look at the PR to see
> how easy you’ve made them to read.

In my experience, they're much harder to diff.

> > 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’m not convinced that there is another toolchain we can measure against
> or that measured user satisfaction is that distant from empirical
> observation of efficiency.

As someone who has been at organizations that go through toolchain changes,
I can tell you that very often the stakeholders have minimal experience
with other toolchains and therefore their level of satisfaction is not
related to whether those toolchains would be more efficient.

> Sponsors, in addition to supporting the IETF for the value it
> delivers, are also increasingly concerned about how the organisations
> they sponsor operate, how they treat their volunteers and staff and
> what opportunities they provide for a diverse range of new
> participants.  To be able to explain this, we need to document the
> participant journey, a map of the different stages of participation
> (e.g. newcomer, leadership), at what stages people start their
> participation in the IETF, how they transition between them and at
> what stages they end their participation.

There seems to be an implicit assumption here that people should
have a "career arc" in IETF that starts with newcomer and
ends with leadership, but I don't think that's obviously
true. Many of our most valuable contributors have never served
in leadership and some of them do lots of reviewing but not
a lot of RFC writing.

No implicit assumption at all.

The phrase "the participant journey" and the description of different
stages implies that.

This is simply documenting what exists though admittedly that information
> could be used for that purpose if the community so desired (I have no views
> at all on whether it should or should not).

Well, I don't know what it is you propose to document, so it's hard to know
what I think about it. But given that this is unclear, perhaps either
clarify it or document it.