Hiya,
On 12/05/2020 04:10, Jay Daley wrote:
>
>
>> On 12/05/2020, at 3:05 PM, Stephen Farrell
>> <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
Attachment:
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
