On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 11:42 PM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Stephen,
Apart from agreeing that 2 weeks isn't enough,
I also tend to think that 2 weeks isn't enough. This document isn't that long so I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to read it in a few weeks, but I do think this will probably require >1 round of consultation and feedback.
I tend to disagree with you.
On the contrary, I'm delighted to see that the LLC is thinking about the
medium term.
+1.
Perhaps some of the allergy here is to the word "strategy" here and that one might read that as the LLC setting the strategy for the IETF? What I take the appropriate subject matter here is the long term planning for the IETF LLC. This is not only appropriate but necessary. Consider, for instance, our software toolchain, where we have considerable investment and which needs to have a roadmap well in advance (i.e., a strategy).
-Ekr
Somebody needs to. As you say,
> If the community do not
> have a 3-5 year strategy (and we clearly do not:-)...
Shame on us, then. It's clear that COVID-19 and sustainability arguments
mean that "go on doing what we've been doing" isn't a plan.
Admittedly, that doesn't make IETF LLC's planning any easier. I won't say
more till I've had a chance to read the draft.
Regards
Brian
On 04-May-20 12:48, Stephen Farrell 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, without the LLC risking, or
> being perceived to be risking, usurping the community's
> control over the whole shebang.
>
> 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.)
>
> 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 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
