[Rfcplusplus] A note on tonight's plenary

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

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
[e-mail] or [e-mail].

See you at the plenary,

Ted Hardie

For the IAB