Subject: [Iasa20] Question about LLC Board

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 11:14:09 -0400

Hi,

I was thinking at last nights plenary if we are expecting the LLC Board attend IETF meetings and sit before the community like the IAOC did last night.  Not sure if this has been discussed, but thought I should mention it.

To me it is important that they do this if we want them to understand the community and to allow the community to give them feedback (aka open mic).

Assuming we expect them to attend IETF meeting, if we have a fully volunteer board (and don’t even pay their travel expenses), are we going to be able to find people who want to serve who aren’t already coming to IETF meetings.  I think it will be challenging to find people who are not regular IETF attendees, if don’t compensate them or at least pay their travel expenses.

Thanks,
Bob

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 11:22:26 -0400

> To me it is important that they do this if we want them to understand the community and to allow the community to give them feedback (aka open mic).

I am not convinced we should expect that and I am not sure why it
would be necessary.  One of the problems, in my opinion, with the IAOC
was exactly that it came to be regarded as part of "the leadership"
along the lines of the IESG or IAB.  That model encouraged the IAOC to
_do_ things rather than to leave things to the staff person who was
supposed to do those things, and that model is part of what we're
trying to break.

It seems to me that feedback, questions, and explanations can be
undertaken on the mailing list, and in principle it's really the
primary staff person (the ED or whatever we end up calling it) who
ought to answer the questions of the community.  We have that Internet
thing, and I feel like this is a case where we could use it.

It would, of course, be bad if _nobody_ who comes to the meetings ever
participates in the LLC board (and conversely), but we seem to have
designed things so that won't happen anyway.

> Assuming we expect them to attend IETF meeting, if we have a fully volunteer board (and don’t even pay their travel expenses), are we going to be able to find people who want to serve who aren’t al…

I agree with this, with s/challenging/impossible.  For instance,
nobody who is not already in Bangkok is going to pay their own way to
go there for the privilege of getting on a stage for a couple minutes
so that people can ask detailed questions of them (which questions
would often be better answered by staff anyway).  Given the previous
opposition to 

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 12:32:06 -0400

In our discussions we expected that to compensate their travel expenses
would likely be necessary but that they wouldn't necessarily need to attend
each IETF meeting (but that certain board meetings would be located with
IETF meetings). I'm not sure we spent a whole lot of time talking about
this but we did feel we'd need to be pretty flexible, including allowing
for virtual meetings and virtual participation in those meetings.

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 11:14 AM Bob Hinden <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I was thinking at last nights plenary if we are expecting the LLC Board
> attend IETF meetings and sit before the community like the IAOC did last
> night.  Not sure if this has been discussed, but thought I should mention
> it.
>
> To me it is important that they do this if we want them to understand the
> community and to allow the community to give them feedback (aka open mic).
>
> Assuming we expect them to attend IETF meeting, if we have a fully
> volunteer board (and don’t even pay their travel expenses), are we going to
> be able to find people who want to serve who aren’t already coming to IETF
> meetings.  I think it will be challenging to find people who are not
> regular IETF attendees, if don’t compensate them or at least pay their
> travel expenses.
>
> Thanks,
> Bob
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> iasa20 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>

-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
Chief Technologist, Center for Democracy & Technology [https://www.cdt.org]
1401 K ST NW STE 200, Washington DC 20005-3497
e: [email-masked], p: 202.407.8825, pgp: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key
Fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10  1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871

---

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 17:29:55 +0000

I think the LLC Board will need to decide that. But my sense is that while it likely will make sense for the Board Chair (or IED as Andrew suggested) to attend and make a plenary presentation (either in person or via video conference on an exception basis) and interact with the community during an IETF meeting, it is probably unnecessary to ask the entire LLC Board to do so. If that were the case then it would be very expensive from a cost standpoint and the community needs to consider that expense compared to investment in other areas such as tools or meetings or whatever. Lastly, we may have a number of Board members that are no regular IETF attendees.

JL

On 7/19/18, 11:15 AM, "iasa20 on behalf of Bob Hinden" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

    Hi,

    
    
    Thanks,
    Bob

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 13:51:33 -0400

I would hope that the IED (staff) would NOT be the voice of the board to 
the IETF.  That person will of course be at meetings.  I suppose there 
may be need for them to be reporting.  But it would not be a report on 
behalf of the LLC board.  Nor, as far as I can tell, should we expect 
them to be the person to carry messages from the IETF to the LLC Board.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 06:27:02 +1200

Maybe we should request that all Board meetings should be open to remote listeners (live or recorded), except when an executive session is justified.

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 14:41:47 -0400

> Maybe we should request that all Board meetings should be open to remote listeners (live or recorded), except when an executive session is justified.

As a possibly useful data point, I had a look at the possiblity of
doing something along these lines for the IAOC while I was chair.
Here are the categories I concluded we had on the agendas (based on
the minutes of the past):

    1.  Contract discussions.
    2.  Personnel matters.
    3.  Status reports.
    4.  Votes.
    5.  Things that didn't belong on the IAOC agenda in the first place.

(1) and (2) are obviously going to have confidential parts (which is
why they basically always have some sort of confidential part flagged
in the public minutes), so they'd have to be in executive sessions
anyway.  The status reports would be better made via email in the
first place, which would of course end up causing some possible
discussions about those status reports; but that could also be done by
email, thereby avoiding the tendency of things to turn into meetings
where synchrony and time zone considerations and all that come into
play.  The votes are of course public, but if there is discussion on
votes they almost always imply something to do with (1) or (2) -- unless
they're dealing with category 5 -- so they also end up needing to be
confidential, and going in and out of executive session (or knowing in
advance whether one could have a discussion without making accidental
disclosures) would make for awkward meetings.

Finally, it is category 5 that I am really quite worried about here:
the idea that we should have a large board (as I've said more than
once, I think 7 is really too large) all going to IETF meetings and
making ceremonious reports to the community will inevitably produce
scope creep and a tendency for the board to create subcommittees, Big
Deal decision-making processes, and so on; and that will tend to get
things that are none of the board's business onto the board agenda.  I
want to do as much as possible to discourage such a tendency.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 18:43:31 +0000

Seems like a good default open / radical transparency tactic.

On 7/19/18, 2:27 PM, "iasa20 on behalf of Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

    Regards
       Brian

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 15:01:00 -0400

Hi Andrew,

> On Jul 19, 2018, at 11:22 AM, Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

I think the LLC board needs to understand the IETF in order to do it’s job.   I don’t see how this can happen unless it sees the IETF first hand.   I am not sure they need to be on stage (and think that is a separate question), but think it’s important they see what the IETF is doing, especially to provide oversight for the paid staff.  They need to observe the interactions between staff and the IETF community.  Having everything filtered through paid staff won't work.

Otherwise, I fear this will go off the rails fairly quickly.  The IETF is (not sure this is the right word) is quirky as compared to other groups.

Bob

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 15:08:07 -0400

Even if we do expect them to have an open mic session, teleconferences are
a thing.

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 15:12:52 -0400

FWIW I think it's reasonable to

(a) not require all board members to attend the meeting (and open mic),

(b) but to require that the Board Chair or their delegate to represent 
the board *and* answer questions.

Lou

On 7/19/2018 3:08 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> Even if we do expect them to have an open mic session, teleconferences 
> are a thing.
>
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018, 11:14 Bob Hinden <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     I was thinking at last nights plenary if we are expecting the LLC
>     Board attend IETF meetings and sit before the community like the
>     IAOC did last night..  Not sure if this has been discussed, but
>     thought I should mention it.
>
>     To me it is important that they do this if we want them to
>     understand the community and to allow the community to give them
>     feedback (aka open mic).
>
>     volunteer board (and don’t even pay their travel expenses), are we
>     going to be able to find people who want to serve who aren’t
>     already coming to IETF meetings.  I think it will be challenging
>     to find people who are not regular IETF attendees, if don’t
>     compensate them or at least pay their travel expenses.
>
>     Thanks,
>     Bob
>
>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 07:13:18 +1200

Andrew,

> the minutes of the past):

How about strategy discussions? Budget discussions?

> want to do as much as possible to discourage such a tendency.

Agreed. I'm happy with the concept that the Director provides operational
reports and the Board chair (or another Board member) is available
for Q/A on strategy, if needed. But no grandstanding is needed.

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 15:14:53 -0400

Hi,

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 03:01:00PM -0400, Bob Hinden wrote:
> 
> I think the LLC board needs to understand the IETF in order to do
> it’s job.

In the aggregate, I think that is true.

But for the very same reasons that I am worried about us selecting
from just our own community to populate this board, I am unconvinced
by the idea that _everyone_ on the board needs to be intimately
familiar with how the IETF works or what we do or so on.  A board
member who is more familiar with more ordinary business or
not-for-profit practices is (one hopes) going to be capable of
realising that they ought to defer to the more IETF-familiar people on
the board about how things work around here, so they will defer
appropriately.

Obviously, board members should familiarize themselves with what we
are doing and so on.  But I think it would be bad for our pool of
recruits and our own budget if we insisted that board members make
every IETF meeting; and it would be fatal to our pool of recruits if
we insisted that people not otherwise interested in the IETF pay their
own way to meetings.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 15:22:12 -0400

> How about strategy discussions? Budget discussions?

Strategy discussions in our community inevitably turn into discussions
about how things get done and so on, which inevitably produces
information about specifics that can't be disclosed, which means that
either you have to switch back and forth to executive session or else
that the _real_ strategy discussions happen in executive session
anyway.

Budget discussions, in a budget of our size and relative simplicity,
necessarily includes disclosures that identify one of the first two
categories I outlined, so again they'd have to switch back and forth
or (again) effectively happen twice.  The IASA budget today is
published annually so that the community can see it, but the details
of that are not published and I do not think they can be.

Remember, too, that the real _strategy_ of the IETF is not decided by
the IAOC.  It's the job of the IESG to deliver that, and for the IASA
to figure out what is needed in order to deliver the IESG's vision.
The IASA is really administrative support, and AFAICT the IASA2 board
should be in a similar place given what we've asked for.  It's a
management board, not a board of directors, after all.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 20:56:00 +0100

> Seems like a good default open / radical transparency tactic. 

+1

As the LLC is a new thing, I'd be fine if this were tried out
to see how it works - before the IESG started opening up calls,
there were similar concerns that didn't (I think) turn out to
be real problems.

S.

---

From: "Deen, Glenn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 20:15:32 +0000

I’m thinking there are two phases here - the first board and the longer running board. 

Certainly it’s going to be important to have the board be involved at the first few IETF meetings after the LLC formation if they haven’t interacted with us before. 

After it’s up and running I don’t see that it would be necessary for all LLC Board members to attend all IETFs. 

Glenn 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 19, 2018, at 11:15 AM, Bob Hinden <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 16:17:15 -0400

Note that the board itself could decide to fund board members' travel to
IETF if they found it to be in the interest of the LLC.

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 4:15 PM Deen, Glenn <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Certainly it’s going to be important to have the board be involved at the
> first few IETF meetings after the LLC formation if they haven’t interacted
> with us before.
>

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 19 Jul 2018 16:40:23 -0400

>Seems like a good default open / radical transparency tactic.

Most of the LLC's business will be about contracts, personnel, or both.

I'm with Andrew.  Demanding that the meetings be open will just force
the real discussions into hallway conversations.  The more conditions
we put on the board, the fewer people will be willing to do it.

R's,
John

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 11:22:47 -0400

> management board, not a board of directors, after all.

If we depend on the IESG to have a vision for the IETF, I think we've
already lost.

The vision has to be a community thing. The IESG is in charge of helping
the community deliver on that vision, and part of that charge is to make
sure the vision is formulated appropriately, but the vision does not
belong to the IESG.

Sorry - you hit one of my "rant" buttons.

(yes, I authored the IETF's mission statement while I was IETF chair.
Neither I nor the IESG at the time claimed to be the owners of that
mission.)

-- 
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 05:17:26 +1200

I agree with Harald, the community has to decide IETF strategy,
but the ieSg has a role in steering the community.

(What I originally meant was specifically the strategy of the
LLC; certainly that initially consists of the final output of
the IASA2.0 process and it only concerns administrative matters.
But I hope the Board will think strategically, as well as
overseeing ongoing work.)

   Brian

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 14:09:26 -0400

Brian,

> On Jul 20, 2018, at 1:17 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

I agree.

> overseeing ongoing work.)

I note that for the Board to think strategically about the IETF, the IASA 2.0 board needs to understand the IETF community.

Bob

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 13:38:31 -0400

Hi,

Thank you for raising this topic.  It is one I've been thinking about a
bit, and it seems that we as community don't have a great answer about
how to drive "IETF strategy".  I think we have the day to day largely
covered -- there is certainly room for improvement in certain areas, but
that's a different and more tactical discussion.  I also agree with what
has been said already on the thread.  But, as evidenced by this
meeting's discussion on IESG effort/hours, the IESG seems perpetually
overtaxed and I'm not really sure how much time the IESG has to even
"steer the community" on topics beyond the technical scope of current
IETF areas. Of course the IAOC has had the right representatives in the
room (I* chairs and community), but not the mandate for anything beyond
IASA; the IAB's scope is architecture and procedures; and ISOC has at
times initiated programs without community coordination, e.g., the
fellow's program, but they certainly cannot initiate *IETF* changes.

So how/where do we have strategic discussions, and initiate/manage
organization-related strategic changes in the IETF?

For example, for about the last year I've been talking to some folks
about initiating a new IETF activity focused on open source (from my
perspective the success of the hackathon, and Monday's very successful
ANRW has demonstrated the benefit of having such a parallel activity
take place with the normal IETF meetings -- and how such activities can
mutually benefit.)

Such an activity could take many forms, and clearly requires some
discussion on direction and next steps.  In our current structure, it's
not clear what the "right" way is to have this discussion. For example,
is it top publish a draft and try to build IETF consensus around it?
Find an AD to sponsor an "Experiment" such as collocating something like
[1] during an IETF week?  Ask an AD/IETF chair to form a design team?
Something else?

None of these seem quite right due to the discussion involving as many
cost and logistic issues as policy/strategy questions, but it also seems
that this what our current structure support.  Hopefully I'm just
missing something and there's a better answer.

Assuming I'm not, perhaps we should consider if non-technical strategy
discussions and decisions should be lead by the new LLC?
(with consensus being judged by our normal processes.)

Lou

[1] https://www.netdevconf.org/0x12/accepted-sessions.html

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 18:48:32 +0100

> discussions and decisions should be lead by the new LLC?

I'd not be in favour of that. I think having the IESG/IAB
reflect where the community want to go, and then having the
IAOC/LLC figure out the how (but not the what), is correct.

I agree with more hackathon/anrw like things - my fav way
to organise that would be to not have any WG sessions in the
mornings of IETF meetings to leave that time free for such work.
And shorten the overall meeting back to Mon-Thu as well. But
that's an aside. :-) The point here is that deciding to try
that ought IMO be an IESG decision, with logistics figured
out with the secretariat/volunteers and those latter being
overseen (but not micromanaged) by the LLC.

I do not want, and am unaware of any community demand for,
the LLC to steer IETF strategy.

S.

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 13:52:59 -0400

Regarding who sets IETF strategy, it seems like that falls within 
"long-range technical direction for Internet development, ensuring the 
Internet continues to grow and evolve as a platform for global 
communication and innovation."  Which is a quote from the IAB page page 
definition of what the IAB does.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 13:57:30 -0400

I appreciate the fact that we hold the Hackathons at the IETF. 
Cross-fertilization between implementation and standards is critical, 
and getting early open source implementations (and then fixing the 
problems that reveals) is REALLY useful.

In my view it is important that we not confuse that with standards 
development.  Extending the hackathon throughout the week, and 
significantly reducing teh standards development time, seems to be a 
serious problem.  Open source and standards are complementary.  But 
unless you want to seriously reduce our standards work, I don't see how 
taking a large chunk of time away from our working groups can be a good 
thing.

As an additional complexity, if a large portion of the time were devoted 
to open source a research (Hackathon and ANRW time without any working 
groups) I would have a serious problem.  I am not a researcher, and find 
listening to even useful research to frequently be frustrating.  And I 
am not permitted to write code for open source.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 15:05:29 -0400

Hi,

Fwiw I agree with you.  I think running things like the anrw or open source 
track in *parrallel* broadens the appeal and increases usefulness of the 
meeting week. Replacing or reducing wg time/discussions  would be counter 
productive....

Lou

----------

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 15:19:22 -0400

Joel/Stephen,

----------

> definition of what the IAB does.

If we were talking *technical* direction or content of internet standards, 
I don't think there would be a discussion-- the topic I was trying to raise 
was about strategy for how the ietf operates.

I do think there's an argument to be made that the type of change I'm 
suggesting isn't just limited to ietf operations, but rather about how 
standards are developed and within scope of the iesg.

Lou

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 21 Jul 2018 15:32:07 -0400

In article <[email-masked]> you write:
>I'd not be in favour of that.

Me neither.  It would make sense for the LLC to think about how to
fund stuff that the IETF is thinking of doing, but the stuff has to
come first.

R's,
John

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 15:43:37 -0400

> fund stuff that the IETF is thinking of doing, but the stuff has to

Okay, but how do we get the IESG to have sufficient time to consider
more than just processing documents and keeping WGs moving forward? --
which is no small task.

Perhaps with IASA2 largely settled (or settling) maybe there's an
opportunity to get some focus on broader changes/additions/experiments...

Lou

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 21:18:52 +0100

> more than just processing documents and keeping WGs moving forward? --

IMO the IESG need to figure that out themselves.  And I think
they do spend time on such topics. Whilst I was on the IESG I
tried to argue for one approach that never got sufficient traction.
I suspect we'll just need to wait 'till there's an IESG with a
set of folks who do find that they agree enough on some way(s)
to radically change things, and then see what the community think
of that. (Or for external events to force a change.)

> opportunity to get some focus on broader changes/additions/experiments...

Sure.

S.

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 21:30:46 +0100

Hiya,

(Thanks for the subject-line change which is apt)

On 21/07/18 18:57, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> I appreciate the fact that we hold the Hackathons at the IETF> Cross-fertilization between implementation and standards is critical,

Agreed.
> taking a large chunk of time away from our working groups can be a good

FWIW, I disagree - I find such work way more useful than the average
IETF WG f2f session. Both have benefits, and IMO we're now moving (back)
in the right direction, partly by paying more attention to running code
and to (good, relevant) research results.

What I'd like to see is that we seriously reduce the time spent on
WG sessions, and seriously improve the quality of the output, but that
does not mean any "reduction" in standards work... just less cruft:-)
And nor am I claiming that my preferred meeting setup would achieve
this, but I do argue that it'd move us more in the right direction.

> am not permitted to write code for open source.

Note that I did not argue that open-source be a requirement.

I guess you could, if your $dayjob permitted, do your own research
and report on that, or write your own code and report on that. If
your $dayjob doesn't permit any of that, then I agree that that
could, (and perhaps even should) make it harder (but not impossible)
to easily and usefully contribute to our standards process.

Cheers,
S.

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 21:07:21 +0000

This would be a horrible thing, no matter who steers it.  We are best at being engineers, solving tactical needs, and not trying to work according to a strategy.  The corporate strategies of companies like Cisco, Google, Facebook all differ, but their engineers work together to solve common problems.

I am going to stick my fingers in my ears and single 'the port-number song' until this thread dies.

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 17:21:07 -0400

> I am going to stick my fingers in my ears and single 'the port-number song' until this thread dies.

I think it's safe to assume that part of the thread has died a rapid death!

Lou

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 17:31:19 -0400

On 07/21/2018 04:18 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> they do spend time on such topics. 

well part of what prompted my original (and OBE/dead) comment was the
plenary discussion about trying to reduced AD load to less than 50% and
for the ADs keeping up with their reading/workload.  Do you really think
the IESG will really have time for such discussions when we have a
number of ADs working halftime?

Lou

> Whilst I was on the IESG I

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 18:03:42 -0400

Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > unless you want to seriously
    > reduce our standards work, I don't see how taking a large chunk of time
    > away from our working groups can be a good thing.

I don't think Stephen wants to dedicate the the mornings to just open
source/hackathons, but rather to have more unstructured time.

I have seen you spend in-ordinate hours working with small groups of people
to get their specifications make more sense. (Thank you! You do it very well)

Something that is both impractical and undesirable to do in a big group.
It's more of that we need.

(Some of us communicate better in C, Python, Ruby than in English, and thus
the relationship to hackathons...)

    > And I am not permitted to
    > write code for open source.

:-(

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 21 Jul 2018 21:04:03 -0400

> more than just processing documents and keeping WGs moving forward? --

I don't know either but the LLC board is definitely not the right group to 
do it.  Design team?  Working group?  Research group?

R's,
John

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 15:00:37 +1200

> Joel/Stephen,

Have a read of section 2.1 of BCP 39 (the IAB charter):
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2850#section-2.1

It puts long-term technical strategy right in the IAB's court.

Informational RFC 3710 (the IESG charter) doesn't mention strategy.
It does, however, make the IESG "responsible for the direct operation
of the IETF". I'd certainly expect things like the hackathon, usage
of GitHub, etc. to fall under that.

The IETF Chair has the lucky distinction of being in both the
IESG and the IAB, and the two bodies have mutual liaisons, so
anything that lies on the boundary between technical strategy and
how the IETF operates shouldn't get lost.

Anyway... IMHO there's nothing for IASA2 or the LLC to do here.

   Brian

---

From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 15:02:30 +0000

I think there is no "one" answer for all approx. 100 working groups.

I always liked Stephen's proposal of having late meeting start times to ensure more time for informal discussions. That experiment was quite productive (from what I heard/experienced). The difficulty is we don't have more than 24 hours or more than 7 days with the current setup.

If the rationale for not scheduling working group time vs. hackathon vs. research is because of all the "cruft" then that's not fixing the real problem and harming other groups. If a working group is doing cruft with their time, talk to the chairs/AD.

I agree with others, not all IETF work can be done via hackathons. There are many groups in their early cycle (e.g. detnet) where meeting time is very valuable. One can say they can hold virtual interim meetings (for those without the money/time to hold f-2-f interim meetings) but one can also say the same for hackathons and research activities, why not do virtual?

Most of us are time and money constrained so the 3 scheduled meetings/year are all that we can do. I'm not a happy camper with Bangkok's experiment as having Friday with two signup rooms only will most likely result in poor attendance and for any "active/non-cruft" group the shortened M-TH meeting time is questionable on value.

I think just as it's difficult to say all groups need to show "interoperability" before stamping PS, hackathons-only are not the answer for all. RFC4794 obsoleted RFC1264 in 2006, while there may be new inputs to the argument, I'm not sure the conclusion will be different (of course, I'm open to discussion😊).

I do like more research integration with IETF e.g. scheduling during IETF-week. In Routing Area Open meeting, we had two of the ANRW talks as the folks were still around.

So, I'm agreeing with Lou - maybe multiple tracks (and if one hotel can not accommodate - have nearby hotels) would be a good experiment.

Deborah

-----Original Message-----
From: iasa20 <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2018 6:04 PM
To: Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]; Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Iasa20] IETF and Open Source

    > away from our working groups can be a good thing.

I don't think Stephen wants to dedicate the the mornings to just open source/hackathons, but rather to have more unstructured time.

I have seen you spend in-ordinate hours working with small groups of people to get their specifications make more sense. (Thank you! You do it very well)

(Some of us communicate better in C, Python, Ruby than in English, and thus the relationship to hackathons...)

:-(

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-