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

Jay Daley <> Wed, 03 June 2020 19:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 114833A0ED4 for <>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 12:43:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C6H_JDgkcgpe; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 12:43:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from macbook-pro.localdomain (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 56F983A0ED1; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 12:43:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jay Daley <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_87BB0964-0CA6-4385-ABF3-ADC75E599567"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
Subject: Re: Consultation on *revised* IETF LLC Draft Strategic Plan 2020
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2020 07:43:25 +1200
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: ietf <>
To: Stephen Farrell <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
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: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 19:43:30 -0000

> On 4/06/2020, at 2:26 AM, Stephen Farrell <> wrote:
> Hiya,
> I re-read [3] and it is much improved, thanks.
> I do have a few remaining comments:
> - The word "privacy" doesn't appear. That needs to be fixed,
> to provide the proper balance vs. things like: "Sufficient
> high-quality data on participants their activities,
> motivations, expectations, etc to support an evidence-led
> culture." I'd say the way to do that is to make a generic
> statement that the LLC aims to honor the privacy expectations
> of the IETF community - those vary a lot but we are and should
> be a picky crowd when it comes to this topic. (Sorry for not
> noticing this in my earlier review.)

Added as   Note, that this needs to be done in reference to our Privacy Statement (as the applicable policy) and that has a strong focus on openness as well as privacy.

> - I can't see how all the stuff about "participant journey"
> isn't either waffle or over-reach, e.g. if "Fully documented
> participant journey" meant that the someone thinks IETFers are
> going to only follow paths set-out in such a document, that's
> silly and over-reach. If it doesn't mean that then what's it
> for? I suggest removing the term and replacing each occurrence
> with whatever is really meant in each case (or with nothing).
> (And then re-reviewing.)

My answer may unintentionally come across as rude.  

It appears that you are unfamiliar with the concept of user journeys (which, as Ekr has pointed out, is renamed to "participant journey" to be more IETF specific).  These are an important tool in understanding how people interact with systems, whether those systems are organisational or technological.  The details of a user journey are quite simple, as explained in the strategy:

"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.  "

I do not think it is appropriate that we are limited in our strategy to concepts that every reader understands.

> - Saying "LLC strategy closely aligned with the strategic
> objectives of IESG, IRSG and IAB" still indicates a fundamental
> misunderstanding IMO. Those bodies cannot, collectively, have
> an agreed set of such "strategic objectives" at any given
> moment in the sense meant here. ISTM that baking that error
> into the LLC's strategy is likely to lead to over-reach as
> the LLC "extrapolates" from something that can never exist.
> I'd suggest just deleting the offending statements would be
> best.

First, I should note that the term "collectively" is something you have added and not something that comes form this document.  This is about the LLC aligning with the strategic objectives of those bodies, if they have them, and in whatever form they come.

Second, the IESG for one has been looking at strategic planning for some time

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.


> Cheers,
> S.
> On 03/06/2020 04:04, IETFExecutive Director wrote:
>> The IETF Administration LLC began a consultation on its Draft
>> Strategic Plan 2020 [1] on 4 May 2020 and in response to the issues
>> raised so far [2], has developed a revised draft [3] with some
>> substantial changes.  Consultation on this revised draft will
>> continue until Monday 15 June 2020 and may be extended longer if
>> required.
>> The strategic plan is made up of the following elements, all of which
>> are being presented for comment:
>> 1. Linkages.  The organisations and communities that the IETF LLC is
>> linked to and how that linkage is the top-level driver of the IETF
>> LLC strategy. 2. Mission.  This is a literal definition of what the
>> IETF LLC does.  The mission rarely changes in the lifetime of the
>> company. 3. Values.  These define how the company behaves as it
>> follows its mission. These may change over time to reflect broader
>> social changes. 4. Strategic Goals.  The highest priority goals of
>> the IETF LLC.  These may be short-, medium- or long-term goals or a
>> mix.  These are the big picture of what the IETF LLC is aiming to do
>> in the next 3-5 years and so are the key setting that the board
>> expects the company to follow. 5. Strategic Transformations.  These
>> detail the changes that need to be made in order to achieve the
>> strategic goals.   Each transformation details the current state and
>> the desired state to transform into. These transformations should be
>> achievable within 1-3 years.
>> If you have any comments or questions then you can submit those by
>> any of the following methods:
>> * Raising an issue on the Github repository * Direct to me at
>> * Direct to the IETF LLC Board (not including
>> me) at * To the list
>> Please rememeber to comment on the revised draft [3] not the
>> original.
>> [1]
> [2]
>> [3]
> <0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc>

Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director