Re: Extended: Consultation on IETF LLC Draft Strategic Plan 2020
Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Tue, 12 May 2020 21:07 UTC
Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 0DD4A3A0B80; Tue, 12 May 2020 14:07:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 ZEl7MVZqiwzS; Tue, 12 May 2020 14:07:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE94E3A0BCA; Tue, 12 May 2020 14:07:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 075A1BE20; Tue, 12 May 2020 22:07:01 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iRwKcG_DcBt9; Tue, 12 May 2020 22:06:58 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.244.2.119] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 48ADABDCF; Tue, 12 May 2020 22:06:58 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1589317618; bh=M68CSG/cR49OPsjcmJdicaJ7+0QCSMEO9VMS4Kb1W9o=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=GImpfYydHlozoHcECY900ObIKMD+pdwbq2pmswXKJSEOJvhei7tMsw1MGjLGp5Alg kAMpImy1l0mUXFJy49r/Srf6wMb0AeYjbfEbsRrasTw20lJRhWD3+KsnqMG7VCSgdp R6hkSNClMvJYVubJlmNUxojKyNMMCFH2Kde58cE0=
Subject: Re: Extended: Consultation on IETF LLC Draft Strategic Plan 2020
To: Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <158924936047.27653.16895891130229666110@ietfa.amsl.com> <92ddbd6e-4b9f-a474-242e-668bd26582fe@cs.tcd.ie> <F5FF5DCC-67A8-410A-912D-6E31E1FF70C7@ietf.org>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Autocrypt: addr=stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQINBFo9UDIBEADUH4ZPcUnX5WWRWO4kEkHea5Y5eEvZjSwe/YA+G0nrTuOU9nemCP5PMvmh 5Cg8gBTyWyN4Z2+O25p9Tja5zUb+vPMWYvOtokRrp46yhFZOmiS5b6kTq0IqYzsEv5HI58S+ QtaFq978CRa4xH9Gi9u4yzUmT03QNIGDXE37honcAM4MOEtEgvw4fVhVWJuyy3w//0F2tzKr EMjmL5VGuD/Q9+G/7abuXiYNNd9ZFjv4625AUWwy+pAh4EKzS1FE7BOZp9daMu9MUQmDqtZU bUv0Q+DnQAB/4tNncejJPz0p2z3MWCp5iSwHiQvytYgatMp34a50l6CWqa13n6vY8VcPlIqO Vz+7L+WiVfxLbeVqBwV+4uL9to9zLF9IyUvl94lCxpscR2kgRgpM6A5LylRDkR6E0oudFnJg b097ZaNyuY1ETghVB5Uir1GCYChs8NUNumTHXiOkuzk+Gs4DAHx/a78YxBolKHi+esLH8r2k 4LyM2lp5FmBKjG7cGcpBGmWavACYEa7rwAadg4uBx9SHMV5i33vDXQUZcmW0vslQ2Is02NMK 7uB7E7HlVE1IM1zNkVTYYGkKreU8DVQu8qNOtPVE/CdaCJ/pbXoYeHz2B1Nvbl9tlyWxn5Xi HzFPJleXc0ksb9SkJokAfwTSZzTxeQPER8la5lsEEPbU/cDTcwARAQABtDJTdGVwaGVuIEZh cnJlbGwgKDIwMTcpIDxzdGVwaGVuLmZhcnJlbGxAY3MudGNkLmllPokCQAQTAQgAKgIbAwUJ CZQmAAULCQgHAgYVCAkKCwIEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAUCWj6jdwIZAQAKCRBasvrxexcr6o7QD/9m x9DPJetmW794RXmNTrbTJ44zc/tJbcLdRBh0KBn9OW/EaAqjDmgNJeCMyJTKr1ywaps8HGUN hLEVkc14NUpgi4/Zkrbi3DmTp25OHj6wXBS5qVMyVynTMEIjOfeFFyxG+48od+Xn7qg6LT7G rHeNf+z/r0v9+8eZ1Ip63kshQDGhhpmRMKu4Ws9ZvTW2ACXkkTFaSGYJj3yIP4R6IgwBYGMz DXFX6nS4LA1s3pcPNxOgrvCyb60AiJZTLcOk/rRrpZtXB1XQc23ZZmrlTkl2HaThL6w3YKdi Ti1NbuMeOxZqtXcUshII45sANm4HuWNTiRh93Bn5bN6ddjgsaXEZBKUBuUaPBl7gQiQJcAlS 3MmGgVS4ZoX8+VaPGpXdQVFyBMRFlOKOC5XJESt7wY0RE2C8PFm+5eywSO/P1fkl9whkMgml 3OEuIQiP2ehRt/HVLMHkoM9CPQ7t6UwdrXrvX+vBZykav8x9U9M6KTgfsXytxUl6Vx5lPMLi 2/Jrsz6Mzh/IVZa3xjhq1OLFSI/tT2ji4FkJDQbO+yYUDhcuqfakDmtWLMxecZsY6O58A/95 8Qni6Xeq+Nh7zJ7wNcQOMoDGj+24di2TX1cKLzdDMWFaWzlNP5dB5VMwS9Wqj1Z6TzKjGjru q8soqohwb2CK9B3wzFg0Bs1iBI+2RuFnxLkCDQRaPVAyARAA+g3R0HzGr/Dl34Y07XqGqzq5 SU0nXIu9u8Ynsxj7gR5qb3HgUWYEWrHW2jHOByXnvkffucf5yzwrsvw8Q8iI8CFHiTYHPpey 4yPVn6R0w/FOMcY70eTIu/k6EEFDlDbs09DtKcrsT9bmN0XoRxITlXwWTufYqUnmS+YkAuk+ TLCtUin7OdaS2uU6Ata3PLQSeM2ZsUQMmYmHPwB9rmf+q2I005AJ9Q1SPQ2KNg/8xOGxo13S VuaSqYRQdpV93RuCOzg4vuXtR+gP0KQrus/P2ZCEPvU9cXF/2MIhXgOz207lv3iE2zGyNXld /n8spvWk+0bH5Zqd9Wcba/rGcBhmX9NKKDARZqjkv/zVEP1X97w1HsNYeUFNcg2lk9zQKb4v l1jx/Uz8ukzH2QNhU4R39dbF/4AwWuSVkGW6bTxHJqGs6YimbfdQqxTzmqFwz3JP0OtXX5q/ 6D4pHwcmJwEiDNzsBLl6skPSQ0Xyq3pua/qAP8MVm+YxCxJQITqZ8qjDLzoe7s9X6FLLC/DA L9kxl5saVSfDbuI3usH/emdtn0NA9/M7nfgih92zD92sl1yQXHT6BDa8xW1j+RU4P+E0wyd7 zgB2UeYgrp2IIcfG+xX2uFG5MJQ/nYfBoiALb0+dQHNHDtFnNGY3Oe8z1M9c5aDG3/s29QbJ +w7hEKKo9YMAEQEAAYkCJQQYAQgADwUCWj1QMgIbDAUJCZQmAAAKCRBasvrxexcr6qwvD/9b Rek3kfN8Q+jGrKl8qwY8HC5s4mhdDJZI/JP2FImf5J2+d5/e8UJ4fcsT79E0/FqX3Z9wZr6h sofPqLh1/YzDsYkZDHTYSGrlWGP/I5kXwUmFnBZHzM3WGrL3S7ZmCYMdudhykxXXjq7M6Do1 oxM8JofrXGtwBTLv5wfvvygJouVCVe87Ge7mCeY5vey1eUi4zSSF1zPpR6gg64w2g4TXM5qt SwkZVOv1g475LsGlYWRuJV8TA67yp1zJI7HkNqCo8KyHX0DPOh9c+Sd9ZX4aqKfqH9HIpnCL AYEgj7vofeix7gM3kQQmwynqq32bQGQBrKJEYp2vfeO30VsVx4dzuuiC5lyjUccVmw5D72J0 FlGrfEm0kw6D1qwyBg0SAMqamKN6XDdjhNAtXIaoA2UMZK/vZGGUKbqTgDdk0fnzOyb2zvXK CiPFKqIPAqKaDHg0JHdGI3KpQdRNLLzgx083EqEc6IAwWA6jSz+6lZDV6XDgF0lYqAYIkg3+ 6OUXUv6plMlwSHquiOc/MQXHfgUP5//Ra5JuiuyCj954FD+MBKIj8eWROfnzyEnBplVHGSDI ZLzL3pvV14dcsoajdeIH45i8DxnVm64BvEFHtLNlnliMrLOrk4shfmWyUqNlzilXN2BTFVFH 4MrnagFdcFnWYp1JPh96ZKjiqBwMv/H0kw==
Message-ID: <07d1133a-a10c-3845-3a39-9e16faf59b24@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 22:06:57 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <F5FF5DCC-67A8-410A-912D-6E31E1FF70C7@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="CffAz6lZz3h2gXwBhyZDr1MUVmX3hKiu1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/sdPLR7xuY8_v294upxIApRyG0w4>
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: Tue, 12 May 2020 21:07:06 -0000
Hiya, On 12/05/2020 04:10, Jay Daley wrote: > > >> On 12/05/2020, at 3:05 PM, Stephen Farrell >> <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: >> >> >> Possibly replying too quickly again, sorry;-) >> >> On 12/05/2020 03:09, IETF Executive Director wrote: >>> The IETF Administration LLC consultation on its Draft Strategic >>> Plan 2020 [1] has been extended until Monday 1 June 2020. It >>> will be extended again if required. >> >> This seems to say that the LLC exec director has decided to extend >> the period during which community input on the LLC exec director's >> plans will be evaluated by the LLC exec director. I continue to >> find that unacceptable. (*) > > You asked for it to be extended and so it was extended. What other > outcome or process would you have expected to see? > So part of my problem with this is that I think parts of what you propose as LLC strategy needs IETF consensus so that in turn means I don't think it ought be you, as the LLC exec dir, who decides the timeline and the rest of the process. But, I promised a review of the actual text, that's below but 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. Cheers, S. - Many people will not comprehend that "Strategic Plan 2020" refers to the LLC and not the IETF. Many people will have no clue that the LLC is not the IETF. This exercise needs to be properly scoped down so that confusion is much less likely to arise. I suggest a long and boring, but accurate, title such as "2020-2025 plan for IETF LLC administrative actions." - The introduction needs to make it clear what the LLC is and what it is not. As we've seen from on-list comments, people will confuse plans for the LLC and IETF. That text might be something like: "The IETF Administration LLC (IETF LLC) provides the corporate legal home for the IETF, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), and the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). The IETF LLC exists to serve the needs of the IETF community, and does not 'lead' the IETF comminity." - Mission. I suggest reversing the community/leadership, e.g.: OLD: The best possible support corporation to the IETF/IRTF/IAB and their communities NEW: The best possible support corporation to fullfil the administrative needs of the IETF and IRTF communities and leadership (IESG/IRSG/IAB). - I think a similar change to put community first instead of "IETF/IRTF/IAB" should be done throughout. - Evidence - I think that'd be better as "Evidence led: In following the IETF community consensus, the IETF LLC will use evidence, both qualitative and quantitative, as the primary driver of its decision making." - "The LLC will focus solely on its defined role and within its defined mandate." I think that needs references, to make it understandable. - "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. - "predominant" - I don't believe there is IETF consensus to domiate the world in the way that's implied here. - "To secure long-term funding for the LLC/IETF/IRTF/IAB that is more than sufficient to meet their plans." What plans? AFAIK we don't and won't have a community plan for what budget we'll need in 2025. I think that'd be better as some kind of extrapolation from e.g. the current budget that the community have had a chance to consider. (Not that we do;-) Or, the LLC board might establish whether or not the community would like to plan further ahead. If there were consensus on that, then it might be appropriate to state this goal. - "To ensure the value of the IETF is well understood by participants and key stakeholders beyond." I don't believe this is a goal for the LCC. I think it would be overreach for the LLC to try represent the views of the IETF to "stakeholders". As an AD, I was always careful to never do that unless there was an RFC or BCP or similar to point at. - The term "stakeholders" is IMO inappropriate. - "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? - "To deliver a modern and universally well regarded toolchain supporting all the steps of the standards development process." Almost all the terminology here is undesirable and this doesn't recognise the volunteer aspect that has and I hope will continue to be important. "deliver" implies "here's what I'm giving you" "modern" isn't meaningful, "univerally well regarded" is not a thing that happens in the IETF, and "all the steps" is wrong - a number of things that are needed (e.g. thinking, talking, coding) don't need such tooling. - "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. - 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. - "Policy set complete, fully bedded in and signed off by ISOC." The term "Policy set" needs to be defined, so that it is clear that it only refers to policies to which the LLC ought adhere and that ought be approved by ISOC. There are other policies that the community ought control e.g. the output from meeting-venue that don't fit here. - "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. - "participant journey" - what is that? If it means how people engage with the IETF and then fall away from that then I don't accept that the LLC ought drive what we want there. - "Full set of high quality content that enables us to deliver a compelling demonstration of the value of the IETF to any key stakeholder." I think that is a job for the IESG. They may ask for LLC help, but it is not a job to be lead by the LLC. - "cutting edge" - where is the IETF consensus statement on that? I don't believe it exists. There have been many cases of so-called "cutting edge" technology proposals that were nonsensical crap. - A "compelling case" seems like more marketing terminology. - "As the form of the value proposition is unlikely to be something many participants are familiar with, achieving acceptance let alone positive agreement could be challenging and the LLC may need to use an interim value proposition for those areas, such as funding, which would be significantly delayed otherwise." I have no idea what that means, but I think I dislike it:-) It sounds a bit like "we'll tell you what's good about you even if you don't agree with that." - "A defined and measured participant journey is"... not the LLC's business. If the community change the standards process to do away with WG chairs or ADs, that's not a thing in which the LLC ought have a say. Making such statements here either implies that the LLC will do this or that the IETF needs to get off its ass and do this. Even if that last is true, it is not the LLC's job to deliver that kick. - What does "(for LLC services)" mean? Whatever it means precisely, I think it needs to be clear throughout and not a parenthetical aside near the end of the document. - "a major programme of surveys" - I hope not! But you might be right. Where is the evidence that this will be useful? - " benchmarked against comparable organisations including other SDOs" I don't believe that we want to be like all other SDOs. I'd be surprised if there were consensus for my position, or for the one stated in the document here. - A goal "for a zero carbon IETF" is one I tihnk I'd agree with, but it needs to be an IETF consensus and not an LLC policy. That also means defining it well. That ought be much more clearly brought up with the community and not introduced near the end of a document like this. - "a modern architecture and modern user experience" I don't think the LLC ought set the UX guidelines for IETF tools, nor decide that the architecture ought be "modern." Those are IETF community decisions to make, after which the LLC ought set about delivery. (Whether or not it's a good plan to migrate from bespoke tooling to today's fashion needs to be an IETF community discussion, ever one of the many times we need to have that discussion.) - "increasingly unrealistic and inefficient" where is the evidence of that? It may be true, but I don't think I've seen it. - "a world of cloud apps, APIs and web services" - meh, that's more marketing IMO. Those web based APIs can be turned off and that's a major downside that needs to be recognised. - "A new group to look at the big picture, set out a vision and user requirements" I don't like big pictures. The LLC is not the body that should set any "vision" for IETF tools.
- Re: Extended: Consultation on IETF LLC Draft Stra… Stephen Farrell
- Re: Extended: Consultation on IETF LLC Draft Stra… Jay Daley
- Re: Extended: Consultation on IETF LLC Draft Stra… Stephen Farrell
- Re: Extended: Consultation on IETF LLC Draft Stra… Pete Resnick
- Re: Extended: Consultation on IETF LLC Draft Stra… Stephen Farrell
- Re: Extended: Consultation on IETF LLC Draft Stra… Jay Daley
- Re: Extended: Consultation on IETF LLC Draft Stra… Stephen Farrell
- Re: Extended: Consultation on IETF LLC Draft Stra… S Moonesamy
- Re: Extended: Consultation on IETF LLC Draft Stra… Jay Daley
- Re: Extended: Consultation on IETF LLC Draft Stra… Stephen Farrell
- Re: Extended: Consultation on IETF LLC Draft Stra… Jay Daley
- Re: Extended: Consultation on IETF LLC Draft Stra… Martin Thomson
- Re: Extended: Consultation on IETF LLC Draft Stra… Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: Extended: Consultation on IETF LLC Draft Stra… Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: Extended: Consultation on IETF LLC Draft Stra… Jay Daley
- Re: Extended: Consultation on IETF LLC Draft Stra… Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: Extended: Consultation on IETF LLC Draft Stra… Jay Daley