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

Jay Daley <> Sat, 06 June 2020 02:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3239F3A083F for <>; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 19:14:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EHq9xt13-IM5; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 19:14:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B85BC3A083B; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 19:14:14 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Jay Daley <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: Consultation on *revised* IETF LLC Draft Strategic Plan 2020
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2020 14:14:11 +1200
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
Cc: Eric Rescorla <>, ietf <>
In-Reply-To: <>
To: Stephen Farrell <>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17E262)
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: Sat, 06 Jun 2020 02:14:16 -0000

> On 6/06/2020, at 2:02 PM, Stephen Farrell <> wrote:
>> On 05/06/2020 00:54, Jay Daley wrote:
>>>> On 5/06/2020, at 11:22 AM, Eric Rescorla <> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 4:18 PM Jay Daley <
>>> <>> wrote:
>>>> In either case, I think this text should be removed.
>>> Thanks again, I’m going to stick with it though.
>>> Perhaps it's worth taking a step back here and asking what you
>>> think the terms of engagement are on this consultation.
>>> Your text above seems to imply that you are putting this out for
>>> comment but are the ultimate decider on whether to accept those
>>> comments, as opposed to this requiring community consensus. Is that
>>> in fact your position?
>> The question about consensus is a very complex one. 
> Hmm. Eric didn't ask for a definition but for an answer.
> I think I objected on exactly the same basis when the
> first email was sent on this topic. But I don't see a
> clear answer below.
> Nonetheless I take it from your last statement at the
> end that you do consider that you are the one who decides
> how to handle this text. I think that's a bad call and
> an erroneous one.
> Many parts of the putative strategy that are good. But
> there are still bits that IMO require community consensus.
> And for almost all such things, the IESG are the consensus
> caller,

The only two elements of the draft strategy that I am aware of you still objecting to are

- the linkage to IESG/IRSG/IAB strategy; and
- the participant journey

(Notwithstanding your initial objection to the concept of the LLC having a strategy framed this way)

It would be very helpful if you could point to those other elements of the draft strategy where the role of the IESG in calling consensus needs clarification. 


Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
+64 21 678840

> not the LLC, nor the LLC board.
> A bare assertion that that is not so (and that some other
> things are complex) seems to me like a response that is
> lacking.
> Having stumbled into a bit of well-intentioned over-reach,
> dealing with argumentative people like me calling that out
> might well make it harder to pull back I guess. I'm sorry
> if I've made that harder, but it's still the right thing to
> do.
> Cheers,
> S.
>> This
>> consultation is clearly not a substitute for a community consensus
>> process but then it’s not trying to establish a community
>> consensus, it’s trying to find out what the community thinks and
>> what changes need to be made to make it a better fit with community
>> expectations.  Some very significant changes have been made to the
>> draft as a result of the feedback received so far.
>> The pertinent difference here between a consultation and the
>> community consensus process is that those that will accept that
>> result are no longer actively engaged, whereas they remain so in a
>> consensus process until the outcome and so outliers can be judged as
>> such and rough consensus declared.
>> With a consultation we need to ask "do we have to address every issue
>> raised to the satisfaction of the person who raised it?"  My answer
>> is, ideally yes but sometimes no we don’t - there are boundaries
>> and I think it is both transparent and honest to state when those are
>> reached.
>> The LLC board is the ultimate decider on this not me but I choose
>> what I propose to them.  I will note that you and Stephen disagree
>> and they will decide what to do with that information.
>> Jay
> <0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc>