Subject: Reminder: Poll about restructuring options

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 19:30:50 +0200

Just a reminder:

The poll about restructuring options:

<http://tools.ietf.org/poll/admin_scenario_alternatives/>

is open until Wednesday.

The poll does contain questions that we want EVERYONE to answer, whether 
they have a specific opinion or not. So everyone who reads the IETF list 
should answer the poll.

                    Harald

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

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:39:21 -0700

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 19:30:50 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand 
>  <http://tools.ietf.org/poll/admin_scenario_alternatives/>

The poll asks whether one has an opinion and, if one has an 
opinion, whether if favors either of two choices.

The poll provides no way for other, basic, important and logical 
opinions, such as whether both choices are inappropriate.

That makes this a rather exclusionary survey.

d/

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 09:07:49 +0200

> That makes this a rather exclusionary survey.

In that case, you are in the "No, I do not wish to state an opinion" camp 
for this question. Your particular reasons for not wanting to state an 
opinion are your own, and well known to the IETF list.

                    Harald

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 11:59:20 +0100

While I find scenario O to be preferable amongst the alternatives so far suggested, I find
it lacking in a few areas that I would like to see addressed before I give it support.

The document frequently says that "IAOC will be directly accountable to the IETF
community," but in my quick reading of the document I see nothing that quantifies or
qualifies this accountability in terms of day-to-day process or long-term process.

I would suggest that an increased sense of ownership can be given to the IETF community by
increasing the proportion of of IAOC members selected by NomCom. 4 out of 9 seems
preferable to the current 2 out of 7.

May be I missed something along the way, but was there an initial definition of
"administrative support"?

It seems to me that we are missing a statement about reporting lines and communication
lines. At the moment it is well-known that one of the issues is that it is at times hard
or impossible for an IETF participant or WG chair to get good responsiveness from the
secretariat. While scenario O handles this as a macro issue (repeated problems can be
drawn to the attention of the IAOC who will kick where appropriate) there is no
description of the day-to-day process. Although the details of this process may be left
fot IAOC and IASA to sort out (and may be tuned over the years), I think we need to start
with some assumed lines.

As a small nit: "The members of the IAOC will typically serve two year terms" is followed
by text that describes how 3 out of 7 voting members serve one year terms.

Thanks,
Adrian

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 07:27:10 -0400

--On Tuesday, 28 September, 2004 09:07 +0200 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> The poll provides no way for other, basic, important and
>> logical opinions, such as whether both choices are
>> inappropriate.
>> 
> In that case, you are in the "No, I do not wish to state an
> opinion" camp for this question. Your particular reasons for
> not wanting to state an opinion are your own, and well known
> to the IETF list.

Harald, one of the things one learns rather quickly when
actually studying either polling technique or the use of
pseudo-polls to manipulate opinion, is that the "no answer"
category of questions is very important, both with regard to how
it they are stated and with regard to how they are interpreted.  

To combine "I don't have an opinion", "I don't think the options
provided here even approximately represents my opinion", "I have
an opinion but am fearful about telling you", "this discussion
has been so confusing that I have no way to decide", I don't
choose to spend my time worrying about things like this", is
tricky business, however unintentionally.  Doing so with a
single question identified as "No, I do not wish to state an
opinion" makes it worse in some ways.   At a minimum, one should
be extremely careful in interpreting answers to that sort of
question.  And one should be equally careful in interpreting any
of the other answers if this option gets non-trivial answers.

These issues are, of course, among the reasons why the IETF
traditionally doesn't vote... or even conduct "please, everyone
should/must participate" polls.

    john

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:39:59 +0200

John,

what I expected when I caused this poll to be created was that there would 
be a significant number of people choosing "No, I do not wish to state an 
opinion". For multiple reasons - "I trust the leadership to decide better 
than I can" was one that people talking to me gave me, in addition to all 
the ones you mention below.

So the number of people who chose this option was real information to me 
(in something approaching the Shannon sense... information is the amount of 
surprise you get....)

Of course, this poll also suffers from the fallacy that we are looking at 
both the turnout and the distribution of answers before the poll closes, 
thus influencing potential pollees..... I won't say more about my 
interpretation of the poll before the announced "close date" (Wednesday).

                          Harald

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:44:03 +0200

--On 28. september 2004 11:59 +0100 Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

> May be I missed something along the way, but was there an initial
> definition of "administrative support"?

I can't lay my hands on an one-line definition, but section 2 of 
draft-malamud-consultant-report describes the tasks that currently 
constitute "administrative support".

                        Harald

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:30:59 +0200

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> John,
> 
> what I expected when I caused this poll to be created was that there 
> would be a significant number of people choosing "No, I do not wish to 
> state an opinion". For multiple reasons - "I trust the leadership to 
> decide better than I can" was one that people talking to me gave me, in 
> addition to all the ones you mention below.

Hi.

Just to be clear, I trust the leadership to decide better than I can.  I 
don't know about the rest of you, but I have a day job that has 
absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with IETF governance. I'd like to 
have the time to go over all this fun stuff, but even if I did I'd 
rather spend it pestering some CEOs as to how they would structure such 
organizations(s) for success.  I prefer to think of myself as an 
engineer, not an MBA.

Eliot

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:44:54 -0400

Not to pick on Eliot in particular...  This message is really 
addressed to everyone who has said "I trust the leadership to decide":

At 2:30 PM +0200 9/28/04, Eliot Lear wrote:
>Just to be clear, I trust the leadership to decide better than I 
>can.  I don't know about the rest of you, but I have a day job that 
>has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with IETF governance. I'd 
>like to have the time to go over all this fun stuff, but even if I 
>did I'd rather spend it pestering some CEOs as to how they would 
>structure such organizations(s) for success.  I prefer to think of 
>myself as an engineer, not an MBA.

I am also an engineer with a demanding day job and no MBA, and if any 
other member of the IETF leadership has an MBA or a law degree, 
he/she hasn't shared that fact with me.

I do have a certain perspective on these issues as a member of the 
IESG, and I spend most of my free time doing IETF-related work, 
including serving on the ISOC Board.  That doesn't make me any sort 
of expert on corporate finances or governance, though.  I may have 
accepted more responsibility for the IETF than the average 
participant, but I don't believe that I am fundamentally more 
qualified to make this type of decision than many other IETF 
participants.

I consider it (part of) my job to share my perspective with the 
community.  Other members of the community should also share their 
perspectives and experiences (some of us do have MBAs, law degrees, 
experience forming corporations, etc.).  Then, we should work 
together to make good decisions for the IETF.

If the community refuses to participate actively in these decisions, 
I guess that the IETF leadership will be forced to decide what to do 
without active community input.  But, I fear that we would make a 
poorer decision than we would with full community involvement and 
input.

Margaret

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:08:28 +0200

Hi Margaret,

My reading of the situation is that the differences between scenarios 0 
& M revolve around contract and corporate law, potentially in multiple 
jurisdictions.  I'm not a subject matter expert in this area.  If you're 
asking that I run this by lawyers, I'd reluctantly do so.  But I would 
hope that the IAB and IESG could do so and report back.

Don't get me wrong.  It's not that I don't care.  I do.  And I'm not 
saying don't ask for community input.  I'm just saying that we need you 
guys to do leg work for us.

Eliot

---

From: Paul Hoffman / VPNC <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 08:29:56 -0700

>myself as an engineer, not an MBA.

Fully agree.

>poorer decision than we would with full community involvement and 

Fully disagree.

For one thing, many of us are not "refusing to participate actively": 
we responded to the poll saying we aren't expressing a preference. 
That is active and, in my mind, more constructive than expressing an 
opinion based on little understanding and even less commitment to 
follow through. Most of us have been in WGs where someone will have a 
strongly-held opinion based on reading the intro and TOC of a draft 
and some of the messages that have gone to the list so far; most of 
us know how much weight to give those opinions.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 09:41:21 -0700

>  opinion" camp for this question.

It is very unlikely that there is any language on this planet 
that would equate ""No, I do not wish to state an opinion" with 
"I wish to state an opinion but you have no provided a category 
that covers my opinion".

What is normal for surveys that wish to represent the responses 
of those who are not represented by the provided categories is 
"none of the above".  And there is no language on this planet 
that would equate "none of the above" with "No, I do not wish to 
state an opinion".

More generally, you should review John Klensin's brief comments 
on this thread.  Your response to him suggests that you did not 
understand his point.

>  Your particular reasons for not wanting to state an opinion
>  are your own, and well known to the IETF list.

Let's skip over just how remarkably inappropriate and 
unprofessional it is for the IETF Chair to make an ad hominem 
comment like this.

Let's just consider the likelihood that you have no idea what my 
reasons are.  However you appear to be certain you do, so please 
educate me and everyone else about my reasons.   Since you chose 
to make this exchange personal, let's at least deal with things 
explicitly and openly.  

It might be a refreshing example of transparency.

d/

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:26:58 -0700 (PDT)

> Fully agree.

I agree as well.

> us know how much weight to give those opinions.

Paul, I agree 100% with this assessment. I personally have a slight preference
for scenario O, but it isn't strong enough to vote for it. And more to the
point, I don't believe I have enough experience to form a competent strong
opinion on this matter. And this is coming from someone who has for many years
been and continues to be actively involved in other nonprofits. I guess I know
enough to know how little I know...

				Ned

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:49:05 -0700 (PDT)

% Just a reminder:
% 
% The poll about restructuring options:
% 
% <http://tools.ietf.org/poll/admin_scenario_alternatives/>
% 
% is open until Wednesday.
% 
% The poll does contain questions that we want EVERYONE to answer, whether 
% they have a specific opinion or not. So everyone who reads the IETF list 
% should answer the poll.
% 
%                     Harald

	well... i answered what I could on the poll...
	i don't like strawberry or chocolate.  you might have
	made it clearer that a -third- possible answer was "something else"

	as long as the poll is open, you might make enough room
	in the little box to collect other possible ideas from 
	the vast number of folks on this exploder who were not
	interviewed or took the time earlier to contribute 
	their ideas on change.  I still remember Kobe.

--bill
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:11:09 -0400

Hi,

While I agree that the poll should have provided more options, such as:
   - neither 0 nor c
   - indifferent
   - need more info/discussion

The fact that it does include a box for comments mitigates the absence 
somewhat.  Especially if in reporting the results, the comments are 
included as well (without attribution).

But yes, a poll needs better design for full validity.

a.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 13:28:00 +0200

Sigh, Dave.

> "I wish to state an opinion but you have no provided a category

What about English?

If I ask you "do you prefer A or B", and you say "I don't wish to say 
whether I prefer A or B, because you have not provided a category that 
covers my opinion", in what way have you said something where "I do not 
wish to state an opinion" is an inappropriate description?

I could have written the option in the poll as "I do not wish to state an 
opinion on whether I prefer Scenario C or Scenario O", but I thought this 
was so obvious from context that I did not.

> to make this exchange personal, let's at least deal with things

I did not state what I intended to say in an unambiguous manner.

Based on your previous postings to the list, I thought your reasons were 
those you stated in your messages to the list on September 12 - that you 
thought that what we are doing with reorganization is wildly inappropriate, 
and we should do things in a completely different way; I saw no reason to 
search further than that.

If you have other reasons for not wanting to say whether you prefer 
Scenario O to Scenario C or the other way around, and have not shared those 
with the list - they are not well known either to the list or to me.

                     Harald

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:54:20 -0700

> >  It is very unlikely that there is any language on this
> >  planet  that would equate ""No, I do not wish to state an
> >  opinion" with  "I wish to state an opinion but you have no
> >  provided a category  that covers my opinion".
>  What about English?
>
>  If I ask you "do you prefer A or B", and you say "I don't
>  wish to say whether I prefer A or B, because you have not
>  provided a category that covers my opinion", in what way have
>  you said something where "I do not wish to state an opinion"
>  is an inappropriate description?

Let's keep this simple:  saying "i wish to state an opinion" is 
not the same as saying "i do not wish to state an opinion".

It is impressive that you confuse the difference between 
affirmatively embracing an absent alternative with a passive 
refusal to embrace the alternatives presented. 

More simply: Abstaining is not the same as rejecting.

But perhaps that explains how you are able to report such 
positive feedback from the plenaries.

As for your insistence on claiming to know my motives, you again 
missed the point: they don't matter.  

What matters is an attempt to use a biased survey and a biased 
sampling and then claim that the results are somehow meaningful.

d/

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 08:00:11 +0200

> refusal to embrace the alternatives presented. 

Maybe I'm stupid but wasn't there a 'Yes I have an opinion
which I will express later' and a comment textfield? Why not
summarize your view on a webbpage and put the url in the
commentfield checking the 'later' radiobutton? Doesn't that
allow you to express your opinion while not beeing tied to
the predefined choices?

	Cheers Leif

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 08:32:45 +0200

<rant>
I'm a bit fed up with the discussion under this subject field.

The issues that we are trying to solve have been on the table
since the draft that became RFC 3716 was published in late 2003,
and a range of solutions are sketched in
draft-malamud-consultant-report-01.txt,
and we've talked about those, and they have been refined after
that discussion down to two, for which I am mighty grateful.

I haven't noticed any drafts proposing concrete alternatives.

A poll that asks for choice between X, Y and Neither seems like
the only rational way forward in that situation.

</rant>

    Brian

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 00:30:30 -0700

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 08:00:11 +0200, Leif Johansson wrote:
>  which I will express later' and a comment textfield?

That's not what it says.

And trying to use a comment field, to compensate for a 
fundamentally biased multiple-choice form never works. What 
counts is the counting.  The numbers.

d/

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 10:43:12 +0200

> counts is the counting.  The numbers.

In which case you should have written a draft like Brian said.
I am sure that any reasonable alternatives would have been part
of the poll had they been on hand.

	Cheers Leif