Re: [Rfcplusplus] A note on tonight's plenary

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 1:59 PM, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ted,
>
> Thank you for your clear summarization of the IAB’s thoughts.
>
> To make the next step clear, would that be for the RSE to analyze the
> issues discussed during the BOF and to gather data on market perception,
> and then report the results to the community?
>
>
I've copied Heather explicitly here, in case she has not yet seen your
question.

I think there is likely to be more than one next step, but I believe among
them will be Heather gathering data on market perception of the RFC series.
Note, however, that she only committed at the BoF to moving it up the
priority stack; she and the RSOC are very busy with the final stretch on
the format work at the moment.

She may be able to comment further,

regards,

Ted

> Thanks,
> Andy
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> The IESG and IAB understand that there are significant questions about
>> the RFC++ BoF likely to come up during the plenary.  Given the IAB's role
>> as a shepherd of the RFC series, we anticipate questions during the IAB
>> portion of the open mic.
>>
>> As context, below are some thoughts on the BoF from the IAB.
>>
>> First, some of this is the result of tired people working to a deadline.
>> That rushed effort tried to capture a set of discussions, some of which go
>> back before the current IAB (RFC 1796
>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1796>, potential adoption of BCOPs
>> <https://www.nanog.org/sites/default/files/monday_general_publicoptions_aronson_63.3.pdf>,
>> possible new IRTF publication stream), and some of which started at this
>> year’s IESG and IAB retreats.   Second, while the experiment in the BoF
>> proposal did not have IAB consensus, the IAB strongly believed that we
>> needed to hold the related discussions in a public forum.  Holding that
>> discussion only within the IAB or even with the RSOC and RSE did not seem
>> to us to match the need for transparency for a set of issues of this
>> importance to the community.
>>
>>
>> The proponents brought the discussion to the IAB and IESG in the context
>> of a BoF because the basic function of a "birds of a feather" session is to
>> hold a public meeting for folks interested in a common topic or issue.
>> While our usual BoFs are about working group formation, that core meaning
>> is why the proponents took that route to reach the community.
>>
>> We made some mistakes in that:
>>
>>
>>    -
>>
>>    The context built up by the IESG and IAB at their retreat and in
>>    other discussions did not translate into the BoF description, even for
>>    those who read all the listed background material.
>>    -
>>
>>    Some of the folks already involved in the RFC processes were not part
>>    of early coordination.
>>    -
>>
>>    The problem statement was not sufficiently articulated, and the
>>    discussion on the list did not start early enough to help.
>>    -
>>
>>    The use of the BoF term and the location of the meeting at an IETF
>>    caused some concern that other parts of the Internet technical community
>>    were being deliberately ignored.
>>    -
>>
>>    Engaging folks who were not deeply familiar with the IETF process did
>>    not work, despite some folks putting in significant effort to do so.
>>    -
>>
>>    The proposed experiment also did not resonate at all well with the
>>    community, and the IAB has heard that feedback loud and clear.
>>    -
>>
>>    The early discussion on the list also caused the chairs to reshape
>>    the agenda; while that had some positive effects in moving the discussion
>>    up a level, some folks found removing all mention of the experiment
>>    confusing.
>>
>>
>> On the positive side, the BoF did give folks a forum to share both their
>> concerns about the issue of confusion and for members of the community to
>> give clear feedback on their perception of the risks inherent in making
>> changes to address the issue.  It also gave clear feedback that Heather, as
>> RFC Series Editor, sees gathering data about market perception of the RFC
>> Series as in her bailiwick under the terms of RFC 6635. She noted at the
>> BoF that she will bump it up her priority stack. We'll take that into
>> account in understanding where she's spending her time, and we'll make sure
>> the RSOC will do so too.
>>
>> The IAB confirms that any data she brings to us on that topic will be
>> made public and that any discussion of next steps will similarly be
>> public.  That won’t use a BoF format, given the feedback, but it will be as
>> open as we can manage.
>>
>> We also heard questions about how the IAB spends its time.  You can see
>> the IAB report to the community, sent earlier, on the IAB website
>> <https://www.iab.org/2018/07/12/report-to-the-community-from-the-iab-for-ietf-102/>.
>> Further input on what our priorities should be is always welcome at
>> iab@iab.org or architecture-discuss@iab.org.
>>
>> See you at the plenary,
>>
>> Ted Hardie
>>
>> For the IAB
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rfcplusplus mailing list
>> Rfcplusplus@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfcplusplus
>>
>>
>