John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Dave Crocker <dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> An "outline" is very different from a detailed specification... Up to this point, I've only seen vague "outlines". I could, I suppose, criticize these for what's _not_ in them, but I'd feel silly... >... > The two documents I cited make a rather strong case that sitting around > and doing nothing in the hope that things will get spontaneously better > is a seriously bad strategy. I don't dispute that. But we have a medium-long list of former IAB/IESG chairs (including you, John!) who could be writing up actual specifications and posting them for comments. Going from vague "outlines" to "implementation" with no visible steps in between, violates the Principle of Least Astonishment. (IMHO.) >... > Whether the level of specification is adequate or not depends, I think, > on how far into detailed management (I'm tempted to say "micromanagement" > but it is too pejorative) the community wants to go. Straw-man. "Micro-management" is something done by people with authority. And the level of specification is far from adequate, even for those who run screaming whenever the "management" word is mentioned. > In particular, this is not, IMO, a "fundamental change in IETF > administrative structure" (your opinion may differ, of course). Though it's hard to say in the absence of details, it looks kind of fundamental to me. >... > That contrasts with the present situation in which one organization You mean the Secretariat, right? > is able to make its own decisions about what is and is not important > and in the best interests of the IETF and the Internet, appoints its > own staff, sets its own budget, and adjusts the meeting fees to match. I'm very ready to admit that not all tasks currently done by the Secretariat deserve to be there, but running the large meetings, IMHO, strongly deserves to be done by an organization experienced at running large meetings. I've seen too many cases of volunteer Boards screwing up an entire organization while trying to run large meetings. I don't know what changes in this area are being considered, and that makes me nervous. > They do that in consultation with the IETF leadership, but have no > obligation to follow any recommendations or conclusions from the > consultative process (or even to provide full details about cost and > expenditure flows). Which, for the large meetings, is the way it ought to be. (IMHO.) There are, of course, other functions currently done by the Secretariat which very likely would be improved by more formal consultation. Indeed, these might very well work better contracted to some other organization. I, again, don't know what changes are being considered. :^( > And there is also another organization that collects funds and disburse > them to yet other organizations, with more oversight from the IETF but > no mechanism for either drawing on the meeting fees or underwriting > IETF costs to keep those fees lower. You mean ISOC, right? > Now, that situation, or at least significant parts of it, actually have > some advantages that have served the IETF well over the years (especially > when there was more total money floating around). I quite agree it has served us well. I'd be giving them money if I could just find that Round Tuit... > But one thing I don't think any of us can do with a straight face is to > say that the proposed new system gives IETF participants less insight > into, or ability to control, things than the status quo. Again, I don't know enough details of what is being considered to say one way or the other. > And my evidence that the typical IETF participant doesn't give the > proverbial back end of rat about this as long as things work --and is > willing to trust the leadership to sort things out so they keep > working-- is not the attendance at a plenary or two, or the general > silence on the mailing list, although both reinforce the conclusion. Yes -- the evidence is strong that _many_ of us run screaming when the "management" word is mentioned. > Instead, it is the observation that almost no one has taken the time, > especially before RFC 3716 and the I-Ds that led up to it were > published, to actually find out about and understand even the above > minimal summary about how things work today and have been working for > the last decade or more. Evidence, please? > Do I wish we had more participation and involvement? Yes. Do I wish > we had better and more participant review of both standards and these > sorts of administrative procedure changes? Yes. There are ways to accomplish that. Personally, I believe we're making progress -- however glacial. > Do I want to see micromanagement, or management by mob, of the external > administrative model? Nope, but largely because I don't think it would > work well and, in particular, because that I think that such a process > would mostly turn IETF over to those who could (and would be inclined > to) spend a lot of time yelling about things they didn't like, rather > than to people selected through the Nomcom process. I'm trying -- really I am -- to avoid calling that another strawman. But for the life of me, I don't see how the alternative to "A Miracle Occurs" getting us from vague outline to implementation _could_ equal "micromanagement" or "management by mob". Nor do I see how giving interested parties their own mailing-list to discuss this would hurt the process. >... > FWIW, I would be a lot more nervous about the present situation if > the proposal were "hire a General Manager on a long term contract > with a specific mandate that was unknown to the community". But that > isn't the proposal. The proposal is, as Harald has described (or, if > you prefer, "outlined") it, to get a consultant on board to take the > next steps in putting the framework together. I assume that will > produce another report and another opportunity for review. Indeed, that is what I expect, also. Unfortunately, I've come to expect we won't learn the contents of that report until a few hours before the Plenary Session in August. I don't mean that anyone intends to keep us in the dark -- it just seems to happen that way. I'm not sure it's even _possible_ to do otherwise. -- John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf