Subject: IETF 86 Admin Plenary Minutes

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 16:54:44 -0400

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/minutes/minutes-86-iesg-opsplenary

Please review and comment.

Russ

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:14:16 -0400

> Please review and comment.

-----------------------------------------
Lorenzo Colitti was wondering what problem we are trying to solve: He
looked at the IESG and they all look the same as the people in the
audience. Is the problem that the people on the IESG don't represent the
people in the audience? Or is the problem that the IETF participants are
not diverse enough. These are two different problems, and they cannot
both be solved with one solution.
-----------------------------------------

I understood the beginning of Lorenzo's comment differently.  I
thought he said that when he looked at the stage he saw one version of
(lack of) diversity, and when he looked at the audience he saw a
different version.  That, as I understood it, is what motivated his
question about which of those problems we're aiming at solving.  (In
the version in the minutes, the question in the second sentence
doesn't really make sense after the first sentence.)

Barry

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 08:01:11 -0700

> Please review and comment.

The difference between a 'venting' session and a 'working' session is 
that the latter produces action items that actually produce further... 
action.

For the most part, the open microphone portion of plenaries tends to 
serve merely as venting sessions, and sometimes as an informal 'chat'; 
if anything productive develops, it is typically not linked to open mic 
activity that possibly triggered to it or contributed to it.

Obviously not part of the basic note-taking effort, but I suggest that 
IETF management groups explicitly consider the task of augmenting the 
notes with published action items they are taking from the sessions.

To that end, the note-taking format might explicitly mark explicit 
requests for action.  Marking something does not assign it or commit to 
followup.  So the above suggestion would still apply.  But the notation 
might make the set of potential action items easier to find in the notes.

Some examples are obvious, while some require a bit of detective work:

> Sean Turner mentioned that a year ago someone asked him how to become
> a WG chair. Asking is the first step! He thinks that if people want to
> actively participate, they need to volunteer to write drafts etc.
>
> Barry Leiba agreed that asking is useful. But the other way round is
> also important: we need to actively look around for good talent.

This highlights some important cultural and procedural guidance -- and 
an explicit action item -- they're worth making more accessible in one 
or another 'guidance' documents.

Merely to offer an example notation:

    Sean Turner mentioned that a year ago someone asked him how to become
a WG chair. Asking is the first step! He thinks that if people want to
actively participate, they need to volunteer to write drafts etc. 
{guidance/leadership}

    Barry Leiba agreed that asking is useful. But the other way round is
also important: we need to actively look around for good talent. 
{action/leadership}

and

> Peter Saint-Andre mentioned that during a WG meeting, SM and he were
> chatting about how to get more people on the Applications Area
> Directorate. Some people are shy about going to the mic. If you are
> not a native English speaker or if you are not comfortable to speak in
> public or if you are a woman in a room of 50 males, you might not feel
> comfortable. We might want to think about other ways to reach out and
> get other people's input than the ways we have right now.

    Peter Saint-Andre mentioned that during a WG meeting, SM and he were
chatting about how to get more people on the Applications Area
Directorate. Some people are shy about going to the mic. If you are
not a native English speaker or if you are not comfortable to speak in
public or if you are a woman in a room of 50 males, you might not feel
comfortable. We might want to think about other ways to reach out and
get other people's input than the ways we have right now. {participation/wg}

d/

-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:20:39 -0700

Hi Dave,
At 08:01 19-03-2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
>The difference between a 'venting' session and a 'working' session 
>is that the latter produces action items that actually produce 
>further... action.

Yes.

>serve merely as venting sessions, and sometimes as an informal 
>'chat'; if anything productive develops, it is typically not linked 
>to open mic activity that possibly triggered to it or contributed to it.

It's good for stress relief. :-)

>Obviously not part of the basic note-taking effort, but I suggest 
>that IETF management groups explicitly consider the task of 
>augmenting the notes with published action items they are taking 
>from the sessions.

That's a good idea in my humble opinion.

>This highlights some important cultural and procedural guidance -- 
>and an explicit action item -- they're worth making more accessible 
>in one or another 'guidance' documents.
>

The above lists asking as the first step.  Most people would not ask 
as it is awkward to do so.

Participants see the same individuals being selected WG Chairs.  Do I 
have to work for a big company to be selected WG Chair?  Do I have to 
be friends with the Area Director to be selected as WG Chair?

Here's a quote from the minutes:

   "Benoit Claise believed that it is also a matter of perception. If
    there is a perception that certain people cannot become leaders,
    then we have a problem."

There is unfortunately such a perception.

>get other people's input than the ways we have right now. {participation/wg}

It is difficult for people who are not from the United States, 
Canada, United Kingdom, Australia or New Zealand to understand the 
English spoken in the IETF.  It is difficult for some people to 
understand the informal words and expressions used in IETF 
discussions.  Someone from Germany mentioned that it would be helpful 
to have transcription services in real time to make it easier for 
non-native English speakers to follow the discussions.

The top affiliations are as follows:

  Cisco
  Huawei
  Ericsson
  Alcatel
  Juniper
  Ntt
  Google
  ATT
  Orange
  IBM

It's up to these companies to see whether the women participation 
requires an action item.  I don't know whether these companies have 
heard of "changetheratio".

I was surprised by the results for the directorate (you may have seen 
the message).  There are bright and talented people irrespective of 
age or sex.  Does anyone reach out to them?

Arturo Servin mentioned the following:

   "don't be afraid to get out of your comfort zone and pick
    people that you maybe would not have thought of before."

Harald Alvestrand mentioned that:

   "Whatever the IETF community has done over the last years did
    not help, so he feels that we need to do something different,
    but doesn't have a suggestion."

The IETF can discuss about the "something different" for the next 
three years or it can take the risk of actually trying something 
different to see whether it works or not.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 16:39:11 -0400

> IETF management groups explicitly consider the task of augmenting the notes
> with published action items they are taking from the sessions.

Along that line, I'll note the notes from the App Area chairs meeting,
which we've posted publicly and included action notes on:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/slides/slides-86-appsawg-4.pdf

Barry, App AD

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 07:59:46 -0700

On 3/19/2013 1:20 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> The above lists asking as the first step.  Most people would not ask as
> it is awkward to do so.

 From the 20 seconds that I used to look for examples, it was 
immediately clear that there are at least two kinds of items to note. 
One, of course, is direct questions and requests.  One other is 'topics' 
that are raised, unresolved, and seem worthy of follow-up.  They might 
or might not turn into questions/requests, but at least they are 
noteworthy (literally).

The larger issue goes beyond annotation methodology.  Namely an open-mic 
environment that seeks to produce an exchange that is actionable, rather 
than a tone that is primarily for venting.

A tone that encourages constructive action tends to be common in working 
group discussion.  So we know it's possible and we are all experienced 
with it.  So the change we need for open-mic sessions is (simply to) 
move more towards developing specific questions and suggestions; this is 
a change on the dais, as well as at the microphone...

d/

ps. I've skipped the substantive issue you pursue, concerning the 
problematic selection processes, only because here I want to focus on 
making open-mic sessions more productive.