Re: Extended: Consultation on IETF LLC Draft Strategic Plan 2020

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stephen,

On 12 May 2020, at 16:06, Stephen Farrell wrote:

> ... overall I think the text is overlong and overreaches
> in ways that could lead to the LLC setting policies for the
> IETF. That isn't ok. Sorry to be so negative but I think
> this would be best refactored down to something much
> smaller and that very carefully doesn't accidentally put
> the LLC into a position of controlling what the IETF does.
> I make specific comments below, but would suggest those not
> be used for wordsmithing, but rather that this document be redone
> starting afresh.

Caveat that Jay can (and should) state his own view on the matter: While 
I agree with you that some of the items in the document are beyond the 
scope of what the LLC ought to be doing (some of them are variants of 
things I mentioned in my message and that others have mentioned as 
well), I don't think on the whole the document structure is an overreach 
or needs to be redone from the beginning. But maybe there are some of 
your statements that I don't understand. Trimming as I go on the items 
which seem like reasonable edits or that are overreaches with which I 
simply agree (or have no strong objection):

> - "As the IETF LLC is a support organisation to the
>   IETF/IRTF/IAB, the strategic goals should ideally reflect
> their strategic goals." As written, this makes no sense to me,
> given the IETF lacks strategic goals.

We don't? Is "creating useful Internet standards" not a strategic goal? 
Perhaps "meeting in plenary 3 times a year to advance our work on 
Internet standards" is too tactical, but it's some sort of goal, and the 
output of MTGVENUE seemed a bit strategic. We don't have a "strategic 
plan" of the sort that the LLC seems to be creating for themselves, but 
I feel like maybe we do have some stated strategic goals from time to 
time.

But even if we don't, couldn't this be fixed to simply say that the 
LLC's strategic goals should be set to reflect IETF/IRTF/IAB expressed 
administrative needs and desires?

> - "To secure long-term funding for the LLC/IETF/IRTF/IAB that is
>   more than sufficient to meet their plans." What plans?

I assumed our plans included meeting a few times a year in plenary, 
having technology to do online interim meetings, having tools to manage 
our documents and standards activities, etc. Isn't that what we want the 
LLC to secure long-term funding for?

> - "To rapidly mature the IETF LLC into an organization..." that
>   reads to me like a statement I'd see in the usual commercial
> "take over the world" kind of plan.  I hope we have as a goal
> that the LLC be lean, and not bloated. Where is that represented
> here?

Being "mature" does not seem incompatible with being "lean".

> - "The focus currently is very much on developing capability and
>   capacity" that reads to me as if there is a desire for a
> bigger LLC and not for a lean LLC.

I think that was stated as the current problem, not the desire.

> - Transformation#1 seems to me to imply the LLC tells the IETF
>   what to do.  That isn't acceptable. I don't believe it's the
> LLC's job to try "fix" the IETF in terms of (our lack of)
> strategy. The stated result is not possible, as none of the
> IESG, IRSG  nor IAB can set strategic objectives for 5 years
> time and the community has not given those bodies any such
> strategic objectives.

This one I truly don't get. The transformation (the "To" part) sounds 
like it's saying, "Talk to the IESG/IRSG/IAB and make sure that the 
LLC's objectives align with theirs", not fixing their objectives. Even 
if those bodies don't have 5 year time horizons on their objectives, 
nothing says that the LLC can't try to figure out what it's 5-year goals 
will be based on what the IESG/IRSG/IAB are saying about their next year 
or two. I just don't see the implication you're seeing. Can you explain 
how you got there better?

> - "Clear, strongly supported and well articulated value
>   proposition for the IETF/IRTF/IAB that supports all our
> engagements." That reads to me like marketing gibberish (hey,
> I'm an academic:-) but if such a thing is needed, it is not up
> to the LLC to drive that process.

I thought this meant that the LLC should have a clear sales pitch to 
(e.g.) potential funders about what's good about the IETF/IRTF/IAB. I 
think the LLC is the right group to do that. Is that not how you read 
it?

I suspect that the answer(s) to the above questions will help me figure 
out why I think there are just a bunch of important edits whereas you 
think this needs a major restructuring or rewrite. But I'm not seeing it 
at the moment.

Cheers,

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