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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 03 June 2020 21:03 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 371FC3A0FAF; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 14:03:43 -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=ham 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 na6NR-lUxBRg; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 14:03:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-x1030.google.com (mail-pj1-x1030.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1030]) (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 E89EC3A0FAE; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 14:03:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-x1030.google.com with SMTP id d6so129768pjs.3; Wed, 03 Jun 2020 14:03:41 -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=20AnSZtFX3pVzQMgvh+1SxHF9uSHvXmhX7hPQCj5HeI=; b=W3V2kPDif7chEpcolDq6h1fxD8TDxsIxlKnvvNzstsMRjYLp3TX13fWvaPH0NR+/fy jUu5Dh62u6PPm3qv99nsgnKl7vBkIAaDfWz6xoWvGDRaiFn1koEkm8KlQ/T4kvLFGIs1 KAmTypxvbD4HMQPV5rM10f+Wf0mqM+5bnwzJ8UqDCvOsj523IyNlQgOd5oNDw9LgJg9O V2zOXgjg24x3Uhg/zOOy1BsaLYP/qhC8uenMTCZZ4kLMn7QEmxwqXJzpUjSI/fG2qwns Qaw3vMvSiVkexQacEo1SbfdNLSKlXp028dPbq3axyBAEZdseo20/SSvQy21foPcMgMTq YWZA==
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=20AnSZtFX3pVzQMgvh+1SxHF9uSHvXmhX7hPQCj5HeI=; b=Yqoln6GQh8xTSKt9lZ5t90mGZV/v6W5rHg/g90UsZcB2Qdkkl+r5qkiemdSBgLwd9f wAOcQmCLyUcvggigAEPnEPjEmtoBWCIxxNzlUA4PRi9oWXzWeRqB3gYfJdD4/lsKUGqd y2XiotDx7Xu95NEzs4nWhHcee44b7s6pIxAGme2S6Lp8VzzRIEsdD6kkengkENIU6fD7 EI3q2V7Eie7K1nn5Sy9OGVLlSSLgfqvqzJHQxVB8ZNRyjcFQPXbY9TWeMz0ymS/gmXvO zK78hQsuqtS2EFAT8a1KFPJAtrm4D4uOo77zI/g7NNuMg3ctg/utljfOEGjIqcYFjR3G 3iqg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533S+0XuQK1TlhW923yf78y6wIcLqkDj2rXFJICAeEnvA5koD/hm SlaEJEHkLriBzGw50FgWygz2qLs3b18=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzxf3Nvh1HSypxCpuhD6rWR9ovk1ZqH5EuVE+pObHdn7YBLlufAig9XEfTJPGXwzGf8Mm5tGQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:b103:: with SMTP id q3mr1547707plr.265.1591218221129; Wed, 03 Jun 2020 14:03:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([165.84.12.178]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u4sm25706pjn.42.2020.06.03.14.03.38 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 03 Jun 2020 14:03:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Consultation on *revised* IETF LLC Draft Strategic Plan 2020
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <159115348321.13976.12703268950916172390@ietfa.amsl.com> <5435ade6-fdaa-4793-e5cd-438f6a0298d4@cs.tcd.ie> <1FE0EF67-6AC8-424B-8E30-5B85C931B230@ietf.org> <d3626a2f-271a-b85b-35da-32cb9213212a@cs.tcd.ie>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <355668e4-a3e8-c050-e1c6-7300af627870@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2020 09:03:36 +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: <d3626a2f-271a-b85b-35da-32cb9213212a@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/kiEJq-nU1_KobLDyKfyyFqwTYyQ>
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: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 21:03:43 -0000

On 04-Jun-20 08:10, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> Hiya,
> 
> On 03/06/2020 20:43, Jay Daley wrote:
>> I do not think it is appropriate that we are limited in our strategy 
>> to concepts that every reader understands.
> 
> Sorry, my point was not that I didn't understand but
> that it was either waffly or indicative of over-reach.

Yes, but I think it also set of your (and my) buzzword detector.
I think we should make an effort (and I mean "we", not Jay in
particular) to use plain English and not jargon terms like "journey"
in this sense, which might be unfamiliar to many people. It's not
as if the LLC has to impress shareholders and analysts by its
command of current business-speak.

> 
>> First, I should note that the term "collectively" is
>> something you have added and not something that comes
>> form this document.
> 
> Yes, you have implicitly made that (false) assumption.
> I just called it out.
> 
> In my experience there is often a significant and real
> difference between what some person perceives to be the
> position/opinion/strategy of the IESG and the reality
> of the situation. An IESG "strategy" could not be that
> were it not the collective consensus of the IESG.

Right, and typically the IESG publishes its tactical and
strategic statements as "IESG Statements". The IAB and the
IRSG seem to do it by email when needed. I don't see a problem
here - when they feel the need to utter collectively, they do so.
 
>> 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.
> That's actually a great example of why your text is wrong.
> If the upshot of your text were that the IESG or IAB went
> running about strategising to keep the LLC happy, then we
> would be entirely in tail-wagging-dog territory. (I can
> totally get why you may think exactly the opposite about
> that though.) In any case, building on an assumption known
> to be false is not only bad planning but also bad logic.

Huh? I think all the draft plan says is that the LLC will align
its strategy with whatever strategies the I* have. If they don't
have a strategy, there's nothing to align with. And if this does
in fact give them an incentive to do some strategic thinking,
wouldn't that be a good thing? Don't you think we are sometimes
a bit *too* tactical?

   Brian