Subject: RE: Is the IETF aging?

From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 15:15:25 -0400

> From: Mary Barnes [[email-masked]]
> 
> Personally, I think IETF has far more of an issue when it comes to
> cultural and gender diversity than it does with not having enough
> younger folks.  This is particularly visible in the leadership.

Given that one moves up in the IETF through gaining the respect of
people in the IETF (and particularly, those in leadership postitions),
it would be difficult to get true cultural diversity.  More likely, we
could assemble a panel of people with any required distribution of
demographic characteristics, but all of them would think like
"IETFers".

Gender diversity is similar to aging, IMO, in that it is hindered by
an accumulation of older participants in leadership positions.

One of the strengths of the IETF is that one acquires positions of
power gradually by accumulating respect of one's peers in the IETF --
that ensures that a company with an economic interest in a technical
decision has a hard time "packing" the IETF's decision-making process.
But that structure automatically makes the culture conservative, and
the higher leadership roles accumulate people with much experience.

John Klensin's concept of "leadership development" seems to be a way
to counteract this.  That is, to be aware of the need to keep the
leadership corps continuously refreshed with younger and
less-experienced people.  Which more or less requires a method of
culling the greybeards, given that they don't conveniently die when
they're 50.

Once there's an ongoing upward movement of people into leadership
positions, it's possible to ask whether women are specifically
inhibited from doing so, and if so, why and what can be done about it.

Dale

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 16:39:25 -0400

--On Tuesday, May 01, 2012 15:15 -0400 "Worley, Dale R (Dale)"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
>  That is, to be aware of the need to keep the
> less-experienced people.  Which more or less requires a method
> of culling the greybeards, given that they don't conveniently
> die when they're 50.

Speaking as a greybeard who doesn't particularly like the idea
of being culled, an alternative is to try to move such people on
to mentoring/ advisory roles (and the few tasks we have around
that _really_ need many years of experience) rather than
occupying roles that can be performed by others.  That is
actually easily accomplished because it can be done unilaterally
by the older members of the community.  The harder part
--because it does require community and leadership commitment --
is finding ways to make those mentoring/ advisory roles work.

   john

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 15:31:47 -0700

Hi John,
>occupying roles that can be performed by others.  That is

The problem is that it can always be argued that many of the tasks 
around needs many years of experience.  That may explain why around 
50% of incumbents are returned.  It has been said that "service in 
the IETF's leadership bodies is a short-term contribution to the 
community, not a career".  Here's the incumbent rate at the middle 
level per area (caution advised as the figures are biased):

  APP  50%
  INT  50%
  RAI   0%
  OPS 50%
  RTG  50%
  SEC  50%
  TSV  67%

>is finding ways to make those mentoring/ advisory roles work.

Yes.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 21:55:08 -0400

________________________________________
From: John C Klensin [[email-masked]]

The harder part
--because it does require community and leadership commitment --
is finding ways to make those mentoring/ advisory roles work.
________________________________________

What would be good patterns for those roles?

Dale

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 19:07:29 -0800

> What would be good patterns for those roles?

I don't know what John has in mind but it strikes me that every
so often we get a wave of new participants (as new topics and/or
work areas are introduced) and it seems to me that it would be
valuable if people who've been through the process a time or
three could help mentor people who are new to the IETF but have
drafts that have been adopted.  Presumably they can help with
process and culture issues, as well.

Melinda

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 11:11:19 -0400

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Melinda Shore <[email-masked]> wrote:
> drafts that have been adopted.

That happens pretty regularly.

> Presumably they can help with

Here I'm not so sure.  While retaining the basic mission statement,
IETF culture _should_ change, to fit the times and to be relevant.
I'm geezer category and I'm hoping the newer folks come up with a lot
more revolution than they have so far.  I look forward to it.

Scott

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 08:36:23 -0700

On 5/2/2012 8:11 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
> IETF culture_should_  change, to fit the times and to be relevant.

While true, it should be a balancing act, between adapting methods to 
the times, while preserving core values.

Original core values of IETF technical work were relative simplicity of 
design and immediacy of utility.  We pressed to get something useful 
working as quickly as we could and then to evolve it.

That still happens.  Sometimes.

d/

-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 22:14:16 +0300

Hi PHB, 

the IETF is not like an enterprise where you can decide (as part of the hiring process) what characteristics your employees should have. 

In a volunteer organization the offered topics drive the participation. Ask yourself: what you as someone who just finished a university education want to hang around in the IETF to standardize yet another IPv4/IPv6 transition mechanism or to participate in the MPLS-TP discussions?

When people suggest new work to the IETF they often see a strange reaction. I remember when Mozilla came to the IETF and proposed to work on the privacy topic "Do Not Track". I couldn't find support for doing the work in the IETF. I don't exactly know why people didn't like it but the W3C immediately picked it up and had seen lots of new companies (mostly from the advertising industry) joining the W3C. 

Ciao
Hannes

On Apr 27, 2012, at 5:06 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

> A question arose on the RFC-interest list, I observed that 20 years
> ago I was one of the youngest IETF participants and 20 years later
> that still seems to be the case.
> 
> I see some grad students and some postdocs in their 20s but not as
> many as I think there should be. By now at least a third of the
> organization should be younger than me, preferably half. That is
> certainly not what I see when I attend IETFs. And yes, the lack of
> women is also highly noticeable.
> 
> If this is the case it should worry us greatly. But first I think we
> need to determine if it is the case or not. I suggest an optional
> demographic survey of participants in the next IETF meeting to be
> repeated at regular intervals (no more than 5 years apart).
> 
> People can argue about process, RFC formats and governance but it
> should be beyond argument that any institution that cannot recruit
> younger members is going to die.
> 
> -- 
> Website: http://hallambaker.com/

---

From: "Kevin P. Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 14:24:43 -0500

> When people suggest new work to the IETF they often see a strange reaction. I remember when Mozilla came to the IETF and proposed to work on the privacy topic "Do Not Track". I couldn't find suppor…

As a counter-point (which supports your position <G>) the creation of 
the CODEC WG has actually brought a number of people/companies into 
active IETF involvement that were likely never involved before.

-- 
Kevin P. Fleming
Digium, Inc. | Director of Software Technologies
Jabber: [email-masked] | SIP: [email-masked] | Skype: kpfleming
445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA
Check us out at www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 12:58:05 -0700

Howevermuch the answer to the Subject question was not true when the 
thread started, it's true now...

d/

---

From: Martin Rex <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 22:07:07 +0200 (MEST)

Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> 
> When people suggest new work to the IETF they often see a strange
> reaction. I remember when Mozilla came to the IETF and proposed to
> work on the privacy topic "Do Not Track". I couldn't find support
> for doing the work in the IETF. I don't exactly know why people
> didn't like it but the W3C immediately picked it up and had seen
> lots of new companies (mostly from the advertising industry)
> joining the W3C. 

What exactly to you mean by "came to the IETF and proposed to work
on the privacy topic"?

What is the I-D that you submitted and how many volunteers were there
to do the work?  And who opposed that you do the work within the
IETF?

What usually does not work in the IETF is that you "drop off" an idea
and "pick up" a standard some time later...

-Martin

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 17:50:53 -0400

Hi,

It may not be line a hiring manager, but all those who have budget can make it a point to make sure some of the younger engineers get to some of the meetings, at least the ones that are relatively local to them.  I assume that many of the older participants, have the means to influence the travel lists.  For years there have been people working on the gender balance perhaps some focus on the age balance may become appropriate.

It was good, though to see that the distribution was not too skewed toward the older participants.

As for bringing new work in, doesn't that take a plan for introducing the subject and showing why it is relevant to the IETF community. Although, knowing you, you probably had such a plan.  I think that the technical privacy issues, for example, while belonging in the IETF, might still feel strange to some of the traditional engineering participants.  So in this case, you may need to promote a slight cultural change that accepts privacy as a requirement as well as the technical challenge of the issue.

avri

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 21:50:20 -0400

> the IETF is not like an enterprise where you can decide (as part of the hiring process) what characteristics your employees should have.

True, but that does not mean that you should decide that there is
nothing the IETF can do to change those characteristics or is in fact
doing albeit unintentionally.

> In a volunteer organization the offered topics drive the participation. Ask yourself: what you as someone who just finished a university education want to hang around in the IETF to standardize yet…

That is one aspect that might influence the decision. But there is a
huge amount of Internet development going on right now and the mean
age of the developers writing protocols is likely in the 20s.

The IETF has a security area and an Apps area, its not just routing.

> When people suggest new work to the IETF they often see a strange reaction. I remember when Mozilla came to the IETF and proposed to work on the privacy topic "Do Not Track". I couldn't find suppor…

And often the people who show them the door are people who contribute
absolutely nothing to the process other than their opinion. They don't
have any pull with the parties that are needed to act to deploy, they
don't have any real technical chops, they don't even have official
positions often.

But when proposals are raised in IETF it only takes five or six people
in a WG who bring nothing to the table to kill an idea.

Now that might be justified if the argument was that the idea was
likely to cause actual damage. But when the argument is 'I am not
convinced of the need for this' well whats the point?

I have just finished a couple of drafts that I have strong backing for
in my industry. The decision to deploy or not will be taken by my
industry, not the IETF.

The reason I raised this is that I can see a generation gap in my
industry. The IETF has ceased to be the leading force in PKI standards
development because the younger engineers don't want to have to engage
here.

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 21:58:02 -0400

> doing albeit unintentionally.

So, what would you do to adjust things ?

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 06:48:53 +0300

> So, what would you do to adjust things ?

I'm not PHB, but an obvious idea would be to change the requirements for a new work item from "rough consensus" to "a bunch of people willing to do the work and at least one willing to implement".  Some working groups already work like this, but it's not universal.

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 May 2012 06:51:34 +0300

Hi Avri, 

> It may not be line a hiring manager, but all those who have budget can make it
> a point to make sure some of the younger engineers get to some of the
> meetings, at least the ones that are relatively local to them.  I assume that
> many of the older participants, have the means to influence the travel lists.
> For years there have been people working on the gender balance perhaps some
> focus on the age balance may become appropriate.

My experience in selecting people who go to standards organizations is a bit
different. Managers typically don't pick people based on discussion skills,
social kills, communication + language skills, writing skills, hair color,
etc. Instead, those who suggest topics and raise their hand at the right
time go to meetings and work on selected topics. There are not that many
people available who are interested in this type of work.

Then, there is an incredible stickiness for staying within the same
organization. If you have started attending 3GPP meetings then you typically
go there forever. You may switch groups and topics (within an organization)
but you rarely see people switching organizations.

In the telecommunication industry you have also seen a lot of layoffs over
the last 10 years and so there are rarely young people around in these
companies anymore (because they either got fired or left the company
voluntarily). 
 
Ciao
Hannes

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 May 2012 06:52:17 +0300

Hi Martin, 

The DNT privacy work was just an example of something that did not work out.
At this point in time the details don't matter anymore since the work
already happens at the W3C.

My point is that you will not find interest from young engineers to work on
10 year old topics. You can try it yourself: give a talk at a university and
see the reaction from the students. Pick a lower-layer topic and a topic
from the application layer (some Web stuff).

Ciao
Hannes

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 May 2012 06:51:45 +0300

> active IETF involvement that were likely never involved before.

Right. 

Whether that working group also attracted the type of people PHB or others
want is something I cannot judge.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 May 2012 08:07:24 +0100

On 2012-05-05 04:48, Yoav Nir wrote:
...
> an obvious idea would be to change the requirements for a new work item from "rough consensus" to "a bunch of people willing to do the work and at least one willing to implement".  Some working groups already work like this, but it's not universal.

There's nothing to stop a group of people developing a specification
as an I-D and prototyping it. They don't need a WG or a BOF or a
sponsoring AD.

The barrier for spending collective resources (WG time, AD time, RFC
Editor time, IANA time) on it should be real, IMHO.

On 2012-05-06 04:52, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
...
> from the application layer (some Web stuff).

It's true. But the fact is that as in any major technical system, neglect
of the infrastructure is a very bad idea. Just consider what happens to
a city if it ignores the sewers and water pipes. Sorry to say that the
IETF (and the operators who read RFCs) are in the same position as
municipal utilities. It's hard to get students interested in sanitary
engineering.

   Brian

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 May 2012 16:18:20 -0400

> So, what would you do to adjust things ?

Some suggestions:

  - Increase IETF brand awareness
    - Leverage the IETF Brand
    - FaceBook page
    - Twitter account
    - Better On-line Access/Participation
    - Forums based communications
       - Offer personalization profiling
          - Photos, etc, "face behind name"
    - IETF "Radio"

  - Encourage elders, veterans Mentoring
      - ID, RFC development
         - Discourage "Use Usual Editors" mindset
      - Consider "PWG "Preliminary Working Groups" to sense full WG
         - Often decision left to the certain few (high barrier)

     on an indirect but I believe part of the improving IETF
     brand and image:

     - Serious review of "Rough Consensus" process
        - Technical Advisors need to get involved earlier

  - Leverage Assets
      - RFC format as a Tech Writing model for Engineering Students
      - Professional Trade member/certification "badge"
      - IETF membership subscriptions
         - Discounts

  - Seek more academia, industry, govt joint ventures
      - Summer "IETF" Internship
      - Start up, grants
      - Resource site

  - Assistance, Awareness with Legal, IP issues (international, etc)

  - Personally, increase the quality of work, minimize the "Fix it
    later" mindset - major turn off for young people IMV.

And perhaps, hire a PR, technical sales consultant who knows the 
subtleties of what comes first; Marketing or Technology.

-- 
Sincerely

Hector Santos
http://www.santronics.com
jabber: [email-masked]

---

From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 10:57:36 -0400

> From: Hannes Tschofenig [[email-masked]]
> 

... or weren't hired in the first place.

If a company has no higher head-count now than 10 years ago, the only
young people who have been hired were hired because they were cheaper
than the older people who have been laid off.  People like that often
either leave for better opportunities, or aren't up to standards work.

For that matter, is the network industry growing?  Almost all IETF
work is at layers 3 to 6; what has been the consumption of new people
in those parts of the industry?

Dale