Hiya, On 04/05/2020 03:03, Jay Daley wrote: > Stephen > > I think you’ve read and reacted to this too quickly. Possibly. But no deep thought was needed to object to a 2 week deadline:-) > The LLC goal > given to it by the community, to achieve a high level of > transparency, means that there is a lot being presented for comment > here all in one go. I'm not sure if that "all in one go" part is a bad plan, but we'll see. > If the time is too short to allow proper > absorption and analysis then I’m more than happy to extend the > deadline. TBH, I don't think it should be your call as to what the deadline might be, nor who sets it. Deciding how to get community direction (not input) for the LLC over the next 3-5 years seems to me a thing the IESG ought control, not the LLC. The practical difference is small, but I think important. (Again, this is about the process, not the content.) > More detailed response below: > >> On 4/05/2020, at 12:48 PM, Stephen Farrell >> <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> Hiya, >> >> To be clear: I fully accept Jay's bona-fides here, and those of >> whomever he has already had discussions with about this. IOW, I >> think this is a well intentioned, but fundamentally misguided, >> ask. >> >> On 04/05/2020 01:19, IETF Executive Director wrote: >>> This email now begins a two week consultation on this Draft >>> Strategic Plan 2020, closing on Monday 18 May. >> I don't think that deadline is acceptable. (*) >> >> I think it's a fine idea for the LLC folks to be planning how to do >> things better. I'm allergic to that being done as a "strategic" >> review. The LLC needs to be mostly driven by the wishes of the >> community. If the community do not have a 3-5 year strategy (and we >> clearly do not:-) then I don't see how the LLC can, > > It’s nowhere near as simple as that. The community has taken > plenty of action that is strategic and is intended for 3-5 year > timescale or longer. The creation of the LLC is one of those > strategic acts and in creating the LLC the community explicitly gave > it some strategic objectives, Can you point at what you mean? No doubting you but I don't recall such a list. > which this draft tries to document as: > > * To secure long-term funding for the LLC/IETF/IRTF/IAB that is more > than sufficient to meet their plans. * To provide the high quality > planning and support services required for the IETF to hold > productive meetings both in-person and online. > > It’s true that there is no document entitled "IETF Community 3-5 > year strategy" but there are plenty of strategic groups and strategic > initiatives that have been completed or are underway, such as the > whole IASA2 work or the current IAB program on the RFC Editor Future > Development. The lack of a single reference to the outputs of those > doesn’t mean they can’t be used as strategic inputs. > > There may be some elements where you feel the draft goes further than > anything document, in which case let’s discuss it. Sure. Like I said, I'll send more comment later. For now, I'm discussing the process only and not the content. > >> without the LLC risking, or being perceived to be risking, usurping >> the community's control over the whole shebang. > > The first safeguard against that is to enshrine community control as > a core value. This draft strategy does that with three core values > just to be sure: > > * Trusted. The LLC will uphold the values and policies of the > IETF/IRTF/IAB as if they were its own. * Responsive. The LLC will > act consistently with the documented consensus of the IETF community, > adapt its decisions in response to consensus-based community > guidance, and engage with the community to obtain consensus-based > guidance for how it operates where none exists. * Focused. The LLC > will focus solely on its defined role and within its defined > mandate. > > The second safeguard is to define the strategy process in a way that > ensures community control. This draft strategy does that with two > core transformations: > > * LLC strategy closely aligned with the strategic objectives of IESG, > IRSG and IAB * Open, annual strategy process that captures community > requests/suggestions in a structured process > > If those safeguards are insufficient or badly worded then please > recommend how they could be strengthened. Again, that's for another day. > >> >> I suggest we cancel this and find another way for the community to >> set 3-5 year priorities for the LLC. That should start by asking >> what the community think could be improved maybe. (But it should >> start with questions and not proposals.) > > The end goal we are all aiming for is a strategy that is > community-led and delivers community requirements. Yes. > To achieve that, > a balance has to be made between the time it takes to start with a > blank page and the risk of leading the conversation by starting with > a proposal. Given the length of time the LLC has been operating, how > long it took to appoint the permanent ED and the tasks facing it, it > seemed appropriate to start with a detailed proposal rather than a > blank page. > > I should also note that much of this was already foreshadowed by the > sharing of my goals [1]> >> As a concrete example of why this 2 week review is (IMO) not >> acceptable, I fundamentally disagree with this as a positive >> proposition: >> >> "LLC strategy closely aligned with the strategic objectives of >> IESG, IRSG and IAB" >> >> The IESG and IAB do not have objectives in a 3-5 year time frame as >> personnel rotate more often than that. > > The draft has multiple parts to it, only one of which is 3-5 year > goals. The bulk of it is the strategic transformations that are 1-3 > years and so fit well with personnel rotation cycles. > >> The IRSG are the RG chairs and at-large members selected by the >> IRTF chair, who is selected by the IAB. (To be open: I was on the >> IESG, and am currently on the IAB and IRSG.) The people with whom >> I've served on those bodies were almost all ones with whom I'd >> happily work again, but neither I nor they can IMO validly set >> "strategic objectives" in that timeframe, nor could they act as >> entities with whom the LLC's "strategy" could be aligned, in that >> timeframe. > > You’re missing the point. I don't believe I am. > The IESG/IRSG/IAB can choose whether or > not to have a strategy, that is up to them. If they choose to have > one then we need to make sure that the LLC strategy aligns with their > strategies and is not off in a different direction. We need to ensure that the LLC does not set the strategy for the community, given that we know the IESG/IAB change personnel as they do and hence never have a 3-5 year strategy. Hopefully the LLC doesn't see personnel change nearly as often, so it can have some longer term plans, and having those is a good idea. But it's far too easy to end up with the tail wagging the dog in such situations, even when everyone is acting in what they see as everyone's best interests. >> No discussion of whether or not the concern I express here is crazy >> or sane could be sorted out in 2 weeks. Therefore a 2 week deadline >> is unacceptable. > > I’m more than happy to extend - can you suggest a deadline or would > you like it open-ended? More time is needed yes. I also think it needs to be the IESG that own this process, and hence set any deadline, should one be needed. Owning the process also means being the one to decide how to handle feedback. Depending on the feedback received, a simple deadline may or may not be enough. Cheers, S. > > Jay > >> >> Cheers, S. >> >> (*) I'm only objecting to the deadline in this mail. I plan a more >> substantive response where I might well object to the entire >> concept of the LLC having a "strategy" without that term being >> highly qualified. <0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc> > > [1] > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/tlGE60p0HACGrP4osnQ1RAjc9Mw/ >
Attachment:
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
