Hiya, On 12/05/2020 23:38, Pete Resnick wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > On 12 May 2020, at 16:06, Stephen Farrell wrote: > >> ... 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. > > Caveat that Jay can (and should) state his own view on the matter: While > I agree with you that some of the items in the document are beyond the > scope of what the LLC ought to be doing (some of them are variants of > things I mentioned in my message and that others have mentioned as > well), I don't think on the whole the document structure is an overreach > or needs to be redone from the beginning. But maybe there are some of > your statements that I don't understand. Trimming as I go on the items > which seem like reasonable edits or that are overreaches with which I > simply agree (or have no strong objection): > >> - "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. > > We don't? I don't know the URL or RFC number for the current set of "IETF strategic goals," so I think, no, we do not. > Is "creating useful Internet standards" not a strategic goal? I don't think it is really, in this context. Presumably many of us would also like "processes that don't take forever" and that'd be in conflict with your putative goal above from time to time and topic to topic. The IETF hasn't said how to balance those so I don't think the LLC can take a position on where we might land. (It may be a fine outcome of this process to identify things the IETF can and ought strategise about I guess.) > Perhaps "meeting in plenary 3 times a year to advance our work on > Internet standards" is too tactical, but it's some sort of goal, and the > output of MTGVENUE seemed a bit strategic. We don't have a "strategic > plan" of the sort that the LLC seems to be creating for themselves, but > I feel like maybe we do have some stated strategic goals from time to time. So the LLC gets to randomly pick the (parts of the) BCPs it would like to map to an "LLC strategy"? It's not that I mistrust anyone - I just don't think that is an ok decision to put upon the LLC. > > But even if we don't, couldn't this be fixed to simply say that the > LLC's strategic goals should be set to reflect IETF/IRTF/IAB expressed > administrative needs and desires? Maybe. But that raises the concern that the LLC, being better organised with a strategy starts to determine the "administrative needs and desires" of the IETF. I do like the idea the LLC has longer term plans, but those need to be carefully scoped/constrained. > >> - "To secure long-term funding for the LLC/IETF/IRTF/IAB that is >> more than sufficient to meet their plans." What plans? > > I assumed our plans included meeting a few times a year in plenary, > having technology to do online interim meetings, having tools to manage > our documents and standards activities, etc. Isn't that what we want the > LLC to secure long-term funding for? I'm not clear we have those plans for 2025. In 2010 it would have been clearer that we probably did have those plans for 2015 but I'm not sure it remains the case. (That's not a covid-related change, I think our current modus operandi has been becoming less defensible for a while.) > >> - "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? > > Being "mature" does not seem incompatible with being "lean". There is no sense in the document that "lean" is a goal. There is a stated desire to dominate. I'm unkeen on the latter myself and very keen on the former. >> - "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. > > I think that was stated as the current problem, not the desire. Kinda the same point as the one above, but I was more reacting to "build capacity" as a desire, and interpreting that to maybe mean "bigger LLC" is good. > >> - 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. > > This one I truly don't get. The transformation (the "To" part) sounds > like it's saying, "Talk to the IESG/IRSG/IAB and make sure that the > LLC's objectives align with theirs", not fixing their objectives. Even > if those bodies don't have 5 year time horizons on their objectives, > nothing says that the LLC can't try to figure out what it's 5-year goals > will be based on what the IESG/IRSG/IAB are saying about their next year > or two. I just don't see the implication you're seeing. Can you explain > how you got there better? I can try. I think the IESG (for example) can't set itself goals/objectives for 2025 because of how we setup the nomcom process. That's a good thing with undesirable consequences for longer term planning. If the LLC set itself a goal/objective for 2025 in agreement with the 2020 IESG, and then tell the 2024 IESG "no, you can't do <y> because the 2020 IESG agreed with us to do <x>" then I think that's giving power and initiative to the LLC that isn't what we intended when setting up the LLC. There need to be somewhat well-defined limits to the kinds of policy/strategy/goal/objectives we're dealing with here to ensure that doesn't happen for damaging cases. There isn't really anything in the current text that envisages such limits. > >> - "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. > > I thought this meant that the LLC should have a clear sales pitch to > (e.g.) potential funders about what's good about the IETF/IRTF/IAB. I > think the LLC is the right group to do that. Is that not how you read it? I don't read "all our engagements" as being limited to "pitching to funders." The current text could be read to allow/encourage LLC staff going around promoting the IETF at random trade shows. If what's intended is much more limited, then the text needs to reflect that. > > I suspect that the answer(s) to the above questions will help me figure > out why I think there are just a bunch of important edits whereas you > think this needs a major restructuring or rewrite. But I'm not seeing it > at the moment. TBH, I think there are so many mismatches that a restart may be better. I can totally get why Jay would like the LLC to have sensible longer term plans, but I think those need much more careful framing to help preserve some parts of what's good about the IETF setup. I further assume we all share preservation of such things, or better, as a goal. (Though merely being preserved isn't a super- attractive sounding goal:-) Cheers, S. > > Cheers, > > pr
Attachment:
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
