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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 31 May 2020 21:08 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 DBB983A0DA0; Sun, 31 May 2020 14:08:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 o7fNJTcncwHU; Sun, 31 May 2020 14:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x533.google.com (mail-pg1-x533.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::533]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD3FA3A0D9C; Sun, 31 May 2020 14:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x533.google.com with SMTP id u5so2561900pgn.5; Sun, 31 May 2020 14:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=EjNyx6jCMJlQEYm8iuNpMN3sqljC8ehPmv6o3n4dpRs=; b=CXu40aXYqEdLLb45aJ3q+5NoMtn9zU0J7i9y2PNsGnIDzW3d5hYgFEGTEzPJ2GmMyh weyuJWW/HuGsegJEDow6LKLZX/5HifkK7Vz2e6McXcMq3FJOD1g46qA2G3NJYRCDzI8l zlCp+41wk9ESWyVlCxKqbF9TzeCr7inb6Ob7/ZnV80olKdhHsOnFJo2geCdKPxDc7zHk QBrDsBnQYCUOu275Ec9p4ghv23EPkmeeYjjikihAFE+d5dUAxJszcSoixVDmmCI0rL/F z3Km8fRATPYiwLLSAc0R3SxZthKzG6maBDk1xzCYvHQxp7C+DpwlOGeCxH4a1brYZiIY MPlA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=EjNyx6jCMJlQEYm8iuNpMN3sqljC8ehPmv6o3n4dpRs=; b=apm9EER9tuhvnM2PYIBvnE2BvvsxZR3CVDhtwRFQ5qRNqwgb8yL4r61L/t/wVJ4j9L vDIe36f9gTC7Ss1bO6lG48yqNZM8MBVSqlILXr6vmG/UNsmMWe6YmVDqC90Uf3NNmc4d sWfkDXeuUvJ3lgEZ9iH7PGOgkK6/mylDzSLYFZAHa7xB6cpjteT2Pr1/QN93wCKa+FMY /lixKRYj6fw5R1FvbaLzmK0ntlO5Bz506H9/pC911F3GEUUkf4zSyxc/s8d6eFsKjo4M oxj1MF/mA6PG4NdrRIXwSoMUjBR5GotSrhyJzxREf4uAc4UJwNo5jjCR+K2SftvXUVoE R6hQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531UUO+U0xUU/aNLcSVCXr8zMbG0hL81sc/Gsl8WQWT61BDbJo4t quTXA7HCODgnWsUIw7nbjYkFFsjRkAk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyYvHz+Xs3EuATDUc9kNVAVgJX7u+iYBgqawFPwN9P9Y9RCD2I85OZjeVZNr5NAvwSRu5FclQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:cd4a:: with SMTP id o71mr17855169pfg.115.1590959331988; Sun, 31 May 2020 14:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([165.84.12.178]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id gg10sm713560pjb.38.2020.05.31.14.08.47 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 31 May 2020 14:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Revised IETF LLC Draft Strategic Plan 2020 to address feedback raised
To: Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, 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>
References: <FC99250A-2B7A-4A3D-80E3-8DDA513C63D6@ietf.org> <CABcZeBOnddO=uiBzaDC82f+Ot532ArAE-czrSHWVqaDUtakGYA@mail.gmail.com> <771ACAB8-48EA-49E6-8792-543F5A4961A9@episteme.net>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <58392ae3-da56-9dc7-6ea9-add60242584a@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 09:08:45 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <771ACAB8-48EA-49E6-8792-543F5A4961A9@episteme.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/gnZQ8iZXWR_8hOzpRuQi4FE9vqA>
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: Sun, 31 May 2020 21:08:55 -0000

On 30-May-20 06:34, Pete Resnick wrote:
> 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.

There are people here with experience of multiple tool chains for
document drafting/review/approval/publishing processes. And there
are people here with experience of other SDOs' processes for
creating/running/destroying WGs, and of handling very large volume
email or other interactions. Everybody is an expert now on Meetecho
vs Webex vs Zoom. So although it might be more work than the results
would justify, I think comparisons are very possible.

   Brian

> 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
>