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

Jay Daley <> Thu, 04 June 2020 23:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 952503A1047 for <>; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 16:18:21 -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 oaC-W3JiHOwE; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 16:18:19 -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 90F3F3A1046; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 16:18:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jay Daley <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B8C644F8-915F-4ABA-B76F-BF4722A73EB2"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
Subject: Re: Consultation on *revised* IETF LLC Draft Strategic Plan 2020
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2020 11:18:14 +1200
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: ietf <>
To: Eric Rescorla <>
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: Thu, 04 Jun 2020 23:18:22 -0000

> On 5/06/2020, at 10:11 AM, Eric Rescorla <> wrote:
> Well, I think this is responsive to part of my comment, namely that we should discuss common user tasks.
> However, I don't think it's responsive to the other part -- which I also take to be Stephen's point -- that we should remove the participant journey text. I have reviewed your proposed change and while I think it's slightly clearer, I simply don't agree that this is really something that should be part of the LLC's strategy. It seems to me that one could think of this in two ways:

Thank you, this is very helpful.

> - Defining/designing the participant journey. This is typically how this shows up in discussions of the user journey in the UX context. This might or might not be a good idea but seems pretty far from the LLC's remit and much more like the IESG's (if anyone).

I agree, way out of the LLC remit.

> - Documenting some typical IETF career paths. I'm not sure how valuable this is as a general matter. The surrounding text suggests that you think of this primarily as a sales tool for potential funders. To the extent to which this is true, I don't think that needs to be called out specially in the strategy; the strategic objective is "recruit funders" and this is just tactics.

Yes it is just tactics, but the LLC is trying to meet community expectations of exceptional levels of transparency and so sharing important tactics is necessary.  A good test for deciding if something is important enough to share is "if people find out about this from someone else other than us then will they feel they should have heard it from us first" and I think this passes that test.

> In either case, I think this text should be removed.

Thanks again, I’m going to stick with it though.


> -Ekr
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 2:54 PM Jay Daley < <>> wrote:
> > On 4/06/2020, at 10:08 AM, Eric Rescorla < <>> wrote:
> > 
> > As I said, I do think it's important to have clear maps for how the individual tasks that people want to do work and where they go wrong, which is sort of a small scale version of this.
> Added issue 
> <> "No mention of need to better understand user flows in order to inform the works of the Tools team and TAS" 
> and addressed it by adding a new transformation and some accompanying text
> <>    
> Jay
> > 
> > -Ekr
> > 
> > 
> -- 
> Jay Daley
> IETF Executive Director
> <>

Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director