Subject: RE: isoc's skills

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:37:37 -0700

Tony,

Thanks for the followup.

>  You are correct we need a detailed documentation of the
>  interface before we deal with any corporate entity. As I see
>  it the differences between your opinion and others has more
>  to do with your focus on the interface than the
>  organizational structure others are commenting on.

My focus is on knowing what the details of the jobs are that we
want done. Referring to the interface(s) is a convenient
technique for trying to surface those details.

Currently we do not have the details.  What we are doing is like
buying a building or a vehicle before we really understand
what uses they are going to be put to.  This leads to thinking
that those details are trivial.  They aren't.

Privately I have been accused of carrying some sort of grudge
against ISOC.  That reaction is unfortunately typical for these
discussions. One cannot ask basic, entirely pro forma questions
about needs and competence without being discounted as carrying
a grudge.

In a very basic way, I think the question of ISOC is irrelevant.
It cannot become relevant until a) we have a substantial
specification of the work to be done and b)  a precise statement
of how a candidate (ISOC) will do it.

So far, anytime someone asks about either, they get no answer or
they get a handwave.  If they press further, the answer changes.

Really.  The lack of substance is astonishing.

I am trying to imagine any of us making even the most
simple purchase of a service with this little comprehension of
what we were buying.

>  reaction to your concern about ISOCs track record was that
>  the IETF itself has even less of a track record, and a poor

That hardly seems like justification for handing the task to ISOC
-- or anyone else who is inexperienced or has done the job badly.

In fact I thought the whole idea was to have this change get
things done better and more easily.  How can we believe that is
going to happen?

>  one at that. Despite the legal difference between the
>  Administrative office being a separate corporation vs.
>  incorporating the IETF itself, the backers of both of those
>  choices appear to assume the IETF will directly deal with the
>  financial issues because their arguments against outsourcing

The key word is 'assume'.

The problem is there is a) no substance to the assumptions, and
b) each person seems to be making different assumptions about
what the substance will turn out to be.

Try imagine writing a protocol spec with that little shared
understanding of what job it is to do.

>  all say 'they have a different focus'. As several people have
>  stated, the IETF participants have a technical skill set and
>  no demonstrable skills at financial administration. Why then
>  are people so quick to point out that outside organizations
>  have a different focus when our internal skill sets don't
>  match the need?

Because it is our organization.

Ultimately it is our responsibility to make it work.

And, by the way, some of the IETF leadership pretty much
explicitly expect the contractor to do all the financial work.
Or at least that is what I have heard some of them say.

>  Yes before we go off and sign agreements we need to know what
>  the details of those agreements will be.

Sorry, no.

Before we make strategic choices it is our responsibility.  And
that means before we even go out for 'bids'.

If we only worry about the details after we have chosen the
contractor, we will probably choose the wrong contractor and we
certainly will not have any negotiating leverage.

>  Others may add to the list, but taken collectively it should
>  be clear that scenario C is fundamentally the end of the IETF

Whereas I guess I would say that the end of the IETF is working
on the the list of scenarios, because that list is based on
ignorance of the work to be done.

When we know what the work is, we can consider how to get it
done.

d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker  a t ...
www.brandenburg.com

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 21:11:32 -0500

On 10/12/04 at 6:37 PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:

>Before we make strategic choices it is our responsibility.  And that 
>means before we even go out for 'bids'.
>

You keep making a fundamental error in these discussions. If it's 
intentional, it's a strawman. If it's unintentional, it's a basic 
misunderstanding of the documents that have been put out:

Neither ISOC in scenario O nor the administrative corporation in 
scenario C is "the contractor".

Let me repeat: ISOC is not the contractor.

ISOC, in scenario O, will hire the contractors to support the IETF 
(according to IETF specifications). The structures we desire in ISOC 
to do the hiring and (more importantly) facilitate communication of 
those specifications between the IETF and ISOC are laid out in 
scenario O.

The admin corporation, in scenario C, will hire the contractors to 
support the IETF (according to IETF specifications). The structures 
we desire in the admin corporation to do the hiring and (more 
importantly) facilitate communication of those specifications between 
the IETF and the admin corporation are laid out in scenario C.

Perhaps you think that we need the specifications about the job *the 
contractors* will need to do before we decide *who it is that is 
going to hire the contractors*. If that's true, I have found nothing 
in your posts justifying that position. (Perhaps you think that we 
can't figure out who is qualified to administer the contracts with 
such contractors before we know what kinds of tasks are going to be 
in the contracts, but I haven't seen you say that directly, and it's 
not directly deducible from what you've said.)

But to continue to refer to ISOC (in the case of scenario O) as "the 
contractor" is complete nonsense.

pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:25:56 -0400

Hi Dave,

I appreciate your feedback on the AdminRest process and documents, 
and I have no doubt that your comments are motivated by a desire to 
help the IETF make the best decisions possible.  I think that is true 
of everyone involved in this process, even when we are strongly 
disagreeming about what the best decisions would be.

I'm not sure, though, how your comments relate to proposal we are 
discussing, Scenario O.

In Scenario O, ISOC would do exactly the same "job" for the IETF 
administrative process that it currently does for the IAB, the RFC 
Editor, etc.  ISOC would provide an organizational home and some 
accounting and fiscal support, but ISOC is not expected to determine 
the IETF's administrative needs and/or choose contractors or partners 
to meet those needs.  Those tasks would be performed by a largely 
IETF-selected body called the IAOC and a new employee called the IAD.

The way I think about this is that the IETF would choose a group (the 
IAOC) to do the work that you are saying that we need to do -- 
determine the details of what needs to be done, and _then_ try to 
find people to do it (including a well-qualified IAD and contractors, 
as needed).  Having the existing leadership go through the process of 
defining the IETF's administrative needs would, IMO, just be silly -- 
we don't have the time or expertise to do this well, especially while 
trying to do our other (and arguably more important) job of running 
the IETF standards process.

CNRI/Foretec has made a commitment to continue providing secretariat 
services throughout this transition (for which I am _very_ grateful 
and think that the rest of the IETF should be, too), so there is no 
reason, IMO, to treat this as an emergency situation.  IMO, we should 
pick the best qualified people to work on this effort, put them on 
the IAOC and let them do the work in a careful and considered way.

The primary goal of this effort, at least in my personal opinion, is 
not necessarily to change service providers, but to manage our 
relationships with our providers so that the finances are transparent 
and so that the priorities and success criteria are set by a group 
that is accountable to the IETF community.
In the end, it may turn out that some or all of the current tasks 
performed by Foretec will continue to be performed by Foretec -- IMO, 
that can only be determined after the IAOC decides how the work 
should be structured and what mechanism we should use to identify the 
contractors to do this work.

If you don't think that this is the best way for the IETF to proceed, 
what would you suggest that we do instead?

Margaret

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:05:17 -0400

>>>>> "Dave" == Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> writes:

    Dave> My focus is on knowing what the details of the jobs are that
    Dave> we want done. Referring to the interface(s) is a convenient
    Dave> technique for trying to surface those details.

    Dave> Currently we do not have the details.  What we are doing is
    Dave> like buying a building or a vehicle before we really
    Dave> understand what uses they are going to be put to.  This
    Dave> leads to thinking that those details are trivial.  They
    Dave> aren't.
I think many of us agree with you that we do not know the details.  I
believe we also agree that we will eventually need to know the
details.

I don't seem to require the details you are asking for to feel like
I'm making an informed decision between the two scenarios.  I think
thas' because I cannot imagine how the sorts of details you are
talking about could influence my decision at this level.

Could you perhaps come up with two possible parts of the answer for
what we're trying to accomplish here that influence the decision
between the two scenarios?  If you could show one possible job we
might want done that favors a corporation and another that favors
working within the ISOC struture, you would go a long way to showing
people that we need to discuss the kind of details you are asking for
now instead of later.

--Sam

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 05:08:27 +0200

Dear Margaret and Pete,
I understand your position. It would be OK if status quo was the target. 
Who hires the contractors would then be neutral. But the situation calls 
for improvements. The first improvement is financial stability. This means 
to make the IETF deliverable pay better and to create new deliverables 
which will pay in addition/replacement. With these new deliverables will 
come additional contractors and _possibly_ new requirement for the 
IAOC.  Also, I tend to think that what maintains the IETF together is 
recognition for authoring its deliverables. This recognition is dwindling, 
so the new deliverables should be conceived for a better recognition of its 
Members.

The IETF is an author being his own publisher. No author ever made money in 
publishing his own books. Just as an example: let consider we decide that a 
new deliverable is an IETF related magazine to keep the world informed, get 
feed backs, document the key IETF Members, etc. This would certainly affect 
the kind of structure we would like to team with. If the publisher is an 
English or a Multilingual publisher would also affect the whole future of 
IETF and of the contibutions to the Internet standard process. The kind of 
publication (and the value of the subscription and distribution) would 
affect the level of recognition and therefore the motivation of the 
Members. They would certainly want to discuss it before. Just an example;

Another problem is a possible IAOC failure. If IETF was not involved in its 
detailed thinking process and supporting its choices, the impact of the 
resulting dispute might be devastating.
jfc

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 00:29:36 -0700

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 21:11:32 -0500, Pete Resnick wrote:
>  ISOC, in scenario O, will hire the contractors to support the
>  IETF (according to IETF specifications). The structures we
>  desire in ISOC to do the hiring and (more importantly)
>  facilitate communication of those specifications between the
>  IETF and ISOC are laid out in scenario O.

Glad to see the term crystalized some perspective.

However...

The IETF is choosing ISOC to do a job.  The IETF is specifying 
the job.  If the IETF does not like the job that ISOC is doing, 
the IETF will get someone else to do it.

And you think that isn't called "contractor"?  

What label would you use?  And how does it describe something 
different from contracting?

And, by the way, yes those other folks that will be hired are 
also contractors, though they contract for different work.

And while it well might be that some other label works better, 
the fact reasonable, diligent people might think that the label 
"contractor" is nonsense is a good indication of just how poorly 
specified the basics are.

But all this does lead to the thought that a basic (inter-) 
organizational chart would be helpful, showing who reports to 
whom in terms of giving direction and making hire/fire decisions.

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:25:56 -0400, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>  In Scenario O, ISOC would do exactly the same "job" for the
>  IETF administrative process that it currently does for the
>  IAB, the RFC Editor, etc.  ISOC would provide an
>  organizational home and some accounting and fiscal support,
>  but ISOC is not expected to determine the IETF's
>  administrative needs and/or choose contractors or partners to
>  meet those needs.  Those tasks would be performed by a
>  largely IETF-selected body called the IAOC and a new employee
>  called the IAD.
>
>  The way I think about this is that the IETF would choose a
>  group (the IAOC) to do the work that you are saying that we
>  need to do --

ISOC won't be making any operational decisions?  They will not 
control the purse strings?  They will not make any hire/fire 
decisions?  The IAOC will live inside ISOC, but ISOC will not 
have any actual power over the activities?

Is that how everyone else is understanding this?

d/

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 12:55:38 +0200

> And you think that isn't called "contractor"?

See below.

> different from contracting?

How about "parent organization"?

> whom in terms of giving direction and making hire/fire decisions.

Indeed.

Eliot

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 09:02:46 -0400

>How about "parent organization"?

I prefer the term "organizational home", because it doesn't raise the 
issue of who conceived whom.  But, close enough.

As far as the organizational chart goes, I'll take that request as 
feedback for the "Scenario O" derived BCP or other follow-on 
documents.  The original Scenario O proposal tried (but apparently 
failed) to make the following structure clear:

[Please note that I am simply attempting to summarize Scenario O, not 
to make an pronouncements about how things must be.  This is all 
subject to community review and consensus.]

The IETF Administrative Directory (IAD) is a full-time employee of 
ISOC selected and reviewed by a subset of the IETF Administrative 
Oversight Committee (IAOC), including at a minimum the ISOC 
President/CEO and IETF Chair.  The IAD reports to the full IAOC, 
although it is likely that the IAOC will delegate week-to-week or 
month-to-month management of the IAD (as appropriate) to a subset of 
the full IAOC (their decision).

Members of the IAOC are largely volunteers selected by the IETF. 
Three are selected by the IETF NomCom (including the IETF Chair Ex 
Officio), one is selected by the IESG, one by the IAB, and two by the 
ISOC Board (including the ISOC President/CEO ex officio).  In this 
role, the IAOC members are accountable to, and report to, the IETF 
community.  None of these details are nailed down, though, so please 
make suggestions if you think that this group should be comprised 
differently.

It is a responsibility of the IAD to develop an IETF Administrative 
Support Activity (IASA) budget that is approved by both the IAOC and 
the ISOC Board.  Other than budget approval and whatever financial 
controls, budget tracking or financial reporting the ISOC Board deems 
appropriate, the ISOC Board has no direct management responsibilities 
for IASA or the IAD.

If you still consider that to be unclear, perhaps you could provide 
an "organizational chart" for some portion of the current IETF 
leadership, and I could use that as a guide for constructing one for 
the IASA?

For those of you who may be interested, there is an issue tracker 
queue for specific issues with the Scenario 0 proposal.  It is 
available at https://rt.psg.com (user: ietf, passwd: ietf), and the 
queue is named "scenario-o".  We're tracking these issues for 
resolution in a "Scenario O"-based BCP or other follow-on documents. 
Please let me know if we have missed any specific issues that have 
been reported regarding the Scenario O proposal.

Thanks,
Margaret

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:01:03 +0200

Dave,

...
> Is that how everyone else is understanding this?

I really don't understand the difficulty you're having here.

Whatever incorporated entity holds the contracts for the
various functions will have to have answers to these questions.
Call it IETF Inc., ISOC, or Alverstrand.com, you will have to
answer them. That's why there needs to be an MoU between
the IETF (the unincorporated association that we all mill
around in, with its Chair, IESG and IAB providing leadership)
and that incorporated entity. Since we live under the rule
of law, clearly from a legal POV the incorporated entity
will take certain decisions, but it will do so as a vehicle
for the IETF's will.

I think the reason people responded overwhelmingly for scenario
O is that it's the *simplest* way to reach the above state.

    Brian

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:28:57 -0400

--On Tuesday, 12 October, 2004 18:37 -0700 Dave Crocker
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Currently we do not have the details.  What we are doing is
> like buying a building or a vehicle before we really understand

Dave,

While I am somewhat sympathetic to what I think you are arguing,
I need to clarify --and probably disagree with-- two points you
have raised specifically.   The analogies and metaphors you use
can be very helpful if they are accurate matches to the
situation.  If they are not, they just add to the general
confusion.

Let's start with the one above.  You have been around the IETF
for a long time -- longer than I have and much longer than any
of the current members of the IESG or IAB.  You also have a long
history of paying careful attention to process issues.  I
suggest that, even with that background, you had little real
input into how we got the administrative support mechanisms we
have today and may not even have had visibility into it.  To use
your analogy above, the way we "bought" the current vehicle was
to have someone drive it up and say "you just bought this and
you are going to pay for it at rates we will determine without
asking you".  Not even close to "really understand the uses",
much less being able to make effective judgments on them.

While I'm very concerned about visibility of decision-making to
the community, and a set of activities and answers that I, too,
consider handwaving (or worse), I also don't aspire to
perfection as the result of this process.  I'd be happy with
"significant improvement" -- in responsiveness, in financial
transparency, and in efficiency with which it is possible for us
to execute on standards-process activities for which
"administrative support" are on the critical path.

And, because I don't share the optimism of some members of the
IESG and IAB about their ability to determine and manage the
details of an administrative process, especially while doing the
"jobs" to which the community has appointed them, I'm far more
interested in getting to an administrative process model that
can develop the highly specific details for which I think you
are asking.  I also think that, if we try to get all of those
details specified at this time, we will almost certainly get
some of them wrong.  Asking that we wait on them until we are
sure is an almost guaranteed recipe for doing nothing for an
extended period, and I am convinced that course of action would
just lead us further downhill.   What I want to buy is a
structure and set of decision-making mechanisms, not a specific
end result at the "who gets hired to do what" level, if only
because, no matter how specific we get, the structure and
mechanisms had best be there to fix it.

Second, you keep repeating variations on...

> ... justification for handing the task to ISOC

Others have tried to explain what is going on here, at least
from their perspective.  Let me try an explanation from mine,
noting that I agree with many of the others too.  ISOC had a bad
time a few years ago.  Their finances were a mess and their
organizational structure was perhaps worse.  If they were still
in that state, trusting them for anything -- even the small
expansion and rationalization of what they are doing for us
already that I, and others, think this is -- would be pretty
close to insane.  But they aren't in that state.  They learned
from it, reorganized creatively and appropriately, changed
management and, as far as anyone I have been able to identify
who has looked at the current situation can tell, are completely
stable.

My taste is such that I'd rather trust an organization that has
been through hard times and learned how to restructure and
survive to greater stability than they ever had before, rather
than an organization that is a figment of the collective
imagination of several people and that therefore has no
experience doing anything at all.  If ISOC's past mistakes and
difficulties are to be held against them forever, then it is
almost impossible for any real organization or person to claim
qualification for doing anything.  Certainly you and I have made
our share of mistakes and that fact doesn't seem to disqualify
us from criticizing aspects of the current plan (or lots of
other things).

At least as important, as others have pointed out, no one is
planning on having ISOC actually operate, e.g., an IETF
Secretariat, in the same way that CNRI/Foretec has been doing.
If they were, it would be legitimate to criticize that choice on
the grounds that ISOC doesn't have that experience.  But, if we
carry that logic very far, only CNRI and Foretec does.  If we
consider them on the basis of the experiences of the last few
years, then we have exactly one experienced candidate (Foretec),
who has done the job badly, and a selection of more or less
inexperienced candidates.   That would leave us no choice at
all, so I prefer someone less experienced than Foretec, chosen
by mechanisms that really involve IETF choices and controls.

Finally, while I disagree with several of the apparent details,
and suspect you might as well, and I think some of the staffing
implications are less obvious than they might be (and have
commented on that subject on-list) Carl's document is actually
fairly specific on the structural details for getting the job
done, and Scenario O is even more specific.  If you have
specific objections, or see things that are missing, please
raise those issues, rather than claiming or implying that the
existing materials are too vague to even identify specifically
what is missing or wrong.

    john