Subject: Re: Functional differentiation

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 18:00:10 -0700 (PDT)

I think there is an assumption in Ted's message below that needs to be
explicitly called out.

That is the distinction between the entity that handles IETF
administration and the organization(s) that actually do the administrative
work: organizing meetings & teleconferences, administrating web sites &
mailing lists, etc.

At the moment, we are discussing various scenarios for housing the entity
that handles IETF administration.  This is a different question from who
does the work.  In the scenarios in which the ISOC takes on a significant
administrative role, I would caution against having ISOC simultaneously
take on one or more major roles as an IETF contractor -- since this
violates the principle of "arms length" dealings.

Given this, the following sentence confuses me:

"But that does not mean ISOC should take over worrying about
the IETF's administrative details."

Even in Scenarios A or B, the ISOC acts as an administrator of contracts
with entities who do the work -- but my assumption is that the ISOC is not
itself responsible for administrative details such as agendas for
biweekly IESG meetings or scheduling of WGs.

For example, today the ISOC contracts with USC/ISI for the RFC Editor
function, but the ISOC is not involved in the day to day administrative
details of the RFC Editor.

Given this, the question we should be asking is whether the ISOC is suited
to expanding its role as an administrator of contracts on behalf of the
IETF.

Bernard

Ted Hardie said:

As many will remember from the IETF 58 plenary presentation, I'm
a big fan of functional differentiation.  Though I try not to be
dogmatic in its application, I believe there are a lot of cases where
the creation of well-focused groups with limited goals is more
successful than the creation of groups with larger scale but more
diffuse goals.  I think it makes it easier to know what success
will look like when a group does its job well; I think it makes it
easier to train people to do those jobs, and I think it is
easier to recruit people into the roles.

As I, personally, look at the choices in front of us for administrative
restructuring, I find that preference manifesting itself in the question:

"In which of these scenarios do folks best get to concentrate on their
real jobs?"

The conclusion I come to at the moment is that scenarios in which the
administrative work is done by a different entity than ISOC meet the
test better.  This isn't because I think ISOC isn't willing to do the
work, or concern over disengagement, or anything to do with how ISOC
relates to IETF as a standards-setting organization.  The work is
just sufficiently different from the role I see for ISOC that I would
rather we have ISOC and the administrative support entity  as two
separate, functionally distinct organizations.

I want to see ISOC working to educate policy makers.
I want to see ISOC educating engineers in emerging areas.
I want to see ISOC fighting for freedom of expression on the net.

To me, those are ISOC's real job.  I think it is very, very
important, and I think the existing relationship between the
IETF and ISOC is an important part of making sure that
ISOC can do that job.

But that does not mean ISOC should take over worrying about
the IETF's administrative details. Worrying over the scalability
of a ticket system is an administrative job.  Getting an agenda for
biweekly meetings together in advance and minutes out after
is an administrative job.  Worrying about the  scheduling of  130
probably conflicting working groups into twelve rooms over 5 days is
an amazingly hard administrative job.  All of those jobs are
critical to keeping the IETF functioning, and I value them all
highly.  But the skills needed for them are not the same as policy
outreach, or technical training, or editorial persuasion.

To put this in more IETF-typical terms, does this look like one
area or two?  To me, two.  I recognize that there is an increased
overhead in keeping two organizations going, but I think the
benefit in focus is worth it.

Just two cents from an IETF participant,
				regards,
					Ted Hardie

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

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 16:52:53 -0700

>the IETF's administrative details."

Even if ISOC were not taking on direct responsibility for doing any of
the work involved, as an administrator of contracts with the entities
who do take it on, ISOC would have to understand the work.
Administering a contract for work you don't understand is a
fast and painful education in either the topic at hand or the
sad, sad state of human cupidity.  As it stands now, ISOC's
role in the RFC Editor contract is balanced by its need to understand the
standards process; it should and does understand what the
RFC Editor does for the IETF.  I don't personally see the same connection
for the work managed by the administrative entity and the work of ISOC.

My use of  the use of the term "details" above was sloppy and distracting,
though, and I apologize.  I did not mean to imply that the ISOC
BoT would be in the escalation chain for RT tickets.

			regards,
				Ted Hardie

---

From: [email-masked] (scott bradner)
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 20:19:24 -0400 (EDT)

>  As it stands now, ISOC's
> RFC Editor does for the IETF.

as well as the ISOC's ability to understand what the IAB (which manages
the RFC Editor) wants the RFC Editor to do (i.e., its not just the ISOC
having to figure out on its own)

Scott

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:01:20 +0200

The benefit of having an Admin Director is that this person
will have responsiveness to IETF needs and desires as the
main item in their job description. I think that is much more
significant than whether the person works for ISOC or a new
entity. It's the person that counts, not their legal employer.

    Brian

---

From: April Marine <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:50:25 -0700 (PDT)

> entity. It's the person that counts, not their legal employer.

This is a very ietf-like point of view, IMO. We are all about individual
effort. Realistically, however, *both* the person AND their employer
matter.

I have worked at companies that contract to a US federal agency. People
who could give me direction were my line manager at my company, my
government task manager, and the government headquarters funding manager.
And yet my job was to serve users, my ostensible "customers." Conflicts
between these folks were not uncommon. Resolving them, in general, meant
resorting to the written contract (task plan) and understanding the
*government's* hierarchy of who could give what sort of direction.
However, in the end, my company boss could reassign me and put someone
else in my place without consulting the government.

The person "we" hire will report to their boss at whatever company they
work for. The company and "the ietf" will have some agreement regarding
duties and what constitutes acceptable performance.  I'm sure "the ietf"
will have some input about who is hired.  However, if some influential
IETF person or group (e.g. IETF Chair, IAB Chair or some vocal part of the
IESG) got it into their head that they didn't like the Admin type person,
could they fire them? What sort of process would that involve? Would, say,
the ISOC *have* to fire them if "the ietf" wanted them to? Who would face
employment liability, etc., in such a case? Probably not "the ietf" as we
currently understand it.

This is the point I was trying to make at the plenary. No matter how great
a person we hire, that person is reporting to their boss in whatever
corporate entity that boss works for.  And no matter how great that entity
is or is currently, what protection will be in place
structurally/contracturally if the current people change (as they will)?

April

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:59:06 +0200

April,

What you say is all true. But whether the legal employer is ISOC
with an MoU defining how the IETF controls the Admin Director,
or a hypothetical new entity with by-laws defining how the IETF
controls the Admin Director, doesn't change much IMHO.

    Brian