RE: Planning (Re: "setting up the administrative structures we need")
--On 15. juni 2004 09:28 -0400 David Lloyd-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --On 9. juni 2004 10:00 -0400 David Lloyd-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On this planet things are almost always set up without plans, and plansare almost always constructed ex post facto to justify whatever happened. not my experience. Harald, A single example would make this observation more credible. There certainly are areas of life in which the making of plans routinly precedes an action -- but they are almost always things of the most utterly routine kind. a trivial example - I don't know if you'll take this as supporting my theory or yours: all IETF WGs start out with milestones saying when they expect to reach their goals - which are supposed to be rooted in some idea of a plan for how to get there. the useful thing about milestones (if there is any useful thing) is that when we (far too often) fail to meet them, it's obvious that we aren't on the first plan any more, and we can re-schedule - which exposes to the rest of the world the fact that we won't deliver what we promised in time, which in turn may lead to THEM adjusting their expected schedules (or, more likely, gripe about the unreliable IETF that can't deliver specs in a timely manner). Panic in time. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Planning (Re: "setting up the administrative structures we need")
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --On 9. juni 2004 10:00 -0400 David Lloyd-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On this planet things are almost always set up without plans, and plansare almost always constructed ex post facto to justify whatever happened. not my experience. Harald, A single example would make this observation more credible. There certainly are areas of life in which the making of plans routinly precedes an action -- but they are almost always things of the most utterly routine kind. Building corporations make plans of the houses they are about to build, but they rarely make plans for the development of their businesses. Ordinary people sometimes write shopping lists before going to the supermarket, but this is rare, and other aspects of ordinary life is which people make the "detailed plans" that an earlier correspondent referred to are far rarer still. my favourite quote on planning is "the purpose of planning is so that you can panic in time" - closely followed by "no plan survives first contact with the enemy". These two quotes are rather in the same spirit as my earlier post. The point I wanted to make, without saying it too baldly, was that the messages about planning, on all sides, seemed to be posted in order exactly to avoid the issue people felt strongly about -- the question of whether there is any good reason to put the hiring of paid staff at the top of the common agenda. There, I've said it baldly. Since we agree that cute quotes have a valuable role in life, I am sorry that I cannot find the canonical form of that Law which states that an organization which puts its own organization high on the agenda is well along in tottering its last steps. Best, -dlj. _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Planning (Re: "setting up the administrative structures we need")
--On 9. juni 2004 10:00 -0400 David Lloyd-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On this planet things are almost always set up without plans, and plans are almost always constructed ex post facto to justify whatever happened. not my experience. my favourite quote on planning is "the purpose of planning is so that you can panic in time" - closely followed by "no plan survives first contact with the enemy". Your end result rarely resembles the plans laid near the beginning. But if you don't try to plan, you don't even realize when things have started to change beyond your control. "if you aim at nothing, you're sure to hit it". This message was brought to you by the department of glib quotes. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: "setting up the administrative structures we need"
Leslie Daigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Dave, No, you haven't missed it -- first step in setting up anything is making a (detailed) plan. Leslie. Hunh? Leslie could you give an example of what you have in mind? On this planet things are almost always set up without plans, and plans are almost always constructed ex post facto to justify whatever happened. Business plans are generally works of fiction spun to deceive banks and investors. Floor plans are inventories of what's on the floor. Planning committees are usually set up by people in power to get pests out of their hair. Blueprints are simply skeletons for revision orders to be hung on. -dlj. _ MSN Premium includes powerful parental controls and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: "setting up the administrative structures we need"
--On 5. juni 2004 16:13 -0700 Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This means that you are proceeding with the changes. No. It means that we need to make a plan for those changes. You can't review what isn't there. My bad wording. Forgive my inattention, but where is a copy of the specific plan that was reviewed and approved by the IETF for these structural changes, and when did the IETF approve it? Leslie's message of May 26 was more accurate than mine. Was there any piece of information you felt was missing in that message? A separate question: To what extent is this effort taking already-scarce IETF resources and serving as a distraction from making the IETF produce better material in a more timely fashion? NEWTRK, ICAR, EDU and the PROTO efforts all have capable leaders who are not critical-path resources for the AdminRest effort. I believe that the AdminRest activities are, in the long run, critical for making it possible for the IETF to produce better material in a timely fashion. So I'm devoting considerable time to it, as is Leslie. I believe we are making the best use of resources that we can make based on our judgment. If you have a specific suggestion to make, make it. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: "setting up the administrative structures we need"
John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> An "outline" is very different from a detailed specification... Up to this point, I've only seen vague "outlines". I could, I suppose, criticize these for what's _not_ in them, but I'd feel silly... >... > The two documents I cited make a rather strong case that sitting around > and doing nothing in the hope that things will get spontaneously better > is a seriously bad strategy. I don't dispute that. But we have a medium-long list of former IAB/IESG chairs (including you, John!) who could be writing up actual specifications and posting them for comments. Going from vague "outlines" to "implementation" with no visible steps in between, violates the Principle of Least Astonishment. (IMHO.) >... > Whether the level of specification is adequate or not depends, I think, > on how far into detailed management (I'm tempted to say "micromanagement" > but it is too pejorative) the community wants to go. Straw-man. "Micro-management" is something done by people with authority. And the level of specification is far from adequate, even for those who run screaming whenever the "management" word is mentioned. > In particular, this is not, IMO, a "fundamental change in IETF > administrative structure" (your opinion may differ, of course). Though it's hard to say in the absence of details, it looks kind of fundamental to me. >... > That contrasts with the present situation in which one organization You mean the Secretariat, right? > is able to make its own decisions about what is and is not important > and in the best interests of the IETF and the Internet, appoints its > own staff, sets its own budget, and adjusts the meeting fees to match. I'm very ready to admit that not all tasks currently done by the Secretariat deserve to be there, but running the large meetings, IMHO, strongly deserves to be done by an organization experienced at running large meetings. I've seen too many cases of volunteer Boards screwing up an entire organization while trying to run large meetings. I don't know what changes in this area are being considered, and that makes me nervous. > They do that in consultation with the IETF leadership, but have no > obligation to follow any recommendations or conclusions from the > consultative process (or even to provide full details about cost and > expenditure flows). Which, for the large meetings, is the way it ought to be. (IMHO.) There are, of course, other functions currently done by the Secretariat which very likely would be improved by more formal consultation. Indeed, these might very well work better contracted to some other organization. I, again, don't know what changes are being considered. :^( > And there is also another organization that collects funds and disburse > them to yet other organizations, with more oversight from the IETF but > no mechanism for either drawing on the meeting fees or underwriting > IETF costs to keep those fees lower. You mean ISOC, right? > Now, that situation, or at least significant parts of it, actually have > some advantages that have served the IETF well over the years (especially > when there was more total money floating around). I quite agree it has served us well. I'd be giving them money if I could just find that Round Tuit... > But one thing I don't think any of us can do with a straight face is to > say that the proposed new system gives IETF participants less insight > into, or ability to control, things than the status quo. Again, I don't know enough details of what is being considered to say one way or the other. > And my evidence that the typical IETF participant doesn't give the > proverbial back end of rat about this as long as things work --and is > willing to trust the leadership to sort things out so they keep > working-- is not the attendance at a plenary or two, or the general > silence on the mailing list, although both reinforce the conclusion. Yes -- the evidence is strong that _many_ of us run screaming when the "management" word is mentioned. > Instead, it is the observation that almost no one has taken the time, > especially before RFC 3716 and the I-Ds that led up to it were > published, to actually find out about and understand even the above > minimal summary about how things work today and have been working for > the last decade or more. Evidence, please? > Do I wish we had more participation and involvement? Yes. Do I wish > we had better and more participant review of both standards and these > sorts of administrative procedure changes? Yes. There are ways to accomplish that. Personally, I believe we're making progress -- however glacial. > Do I want to see micromanagement, or management by mob, of the external > administrative model? Nope, but largely because I don't think it would > work well and, in particular, because that I think that such a process
Re: "setting up the administrative structures we need"
John C Klensin wrote: * Yes, we could cut meeting costs considerably by holding all meetings in the US [...] the US has now created an entry visa situation that makes it essentially impossible for network engineers from a number of countries to attend. How about holding meetings in Canada? It'd be almost as cheap for the US people to attend, and (last I heard) Canada didn't have visa requirements derived from the War On Alleged Terrorists Who Have Major Oil Reserves. -- /=\ |John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] | |Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com| |Centive |My opinions are my own. | |=| |"If nobody believes what I say, I feel ineffective." "Oh, I don't| |believe that." | \=/ ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: "setting up the administrative structures we need"
Dave, No, you haven't missed it -- first step in setting up anything is making a (detailed) plan. Leslie. Dave Crocker wrote: Harald, HA> 2) However, responding to the point asked - what is being hired now is a consultant to HA> help with the activity of setting up the administrative structures we need for the IETF at HA> this point in time. Not the permanent general manager of the IETF administrative support HA> function. This means that you are proceeding with the changes. Forgive my inattention, but where is a copy of the specific plan that was reviewed and approved by the IETF for these structural changes, and when did the IETF approve it? A separate question: To what extent is this effort taking already-scarce IETF resources and serving as a distraction from making the IETF produce better material in a more timely fashion? Clarifications would be appreciated. d/ -- Dave Crocker <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com> Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301> ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- --- "Reality: Yours to discover." -- ThinkingCat Leslie Daigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: "setting up the administrative structures we need"
--On Sunday, 06 June, 2004 16:43 -0700 Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > John, > > JCK> the outlines of this were > JCK> presented in plenary in Seoul and the general consensus > was that JCK> people should move ahead with this process, > > 1. Attendance by the on-going IETF pool of participants was > _very_ poor. Any attempt to claim that positive feedback at > that event is somehow representative of the larger community > should raise some deeper questions about IETF process. (And by > the way, claiming that that room showed strong support does > not match my own perception or the perception of quite a few > other attendees.) I was there the first part of the week. I pretty much know who was there and who wasn't. Oddly, I've expressed the concern that a particular plenary, or process WG session, was not reflective of community consensus before (and that was why I tried to choose my language carefully). But my recollection is that on the previous occasions, you've taken the other position, i.e., that the plenary is our best single location mechanism. On that, and on the classic problem of people having mixed perceptions based possibly on their biases coming in, see below (and the latter are really old problems, in the IETF and elsewhere, but clearly one should be careful about drawing conclusions). > 2. An "outline" is very different from a detailed > specification and I carefully stated that Harald's note > appears to indicate that things have moved beyond > consideration and into actual implementations. If that is not > what is happening, then Harald should explain what actual is > happening. I didn't hear what was actually presented there, since I didn't hear it, and selected the word "outline" to be conservative. But the I-D strikes me as reasonably specific and it was posted before the meeting and, I assume, pointed out there. People in the IETF are, if I recall, expected to read documents on subjects they find relevant. And even to comment on them if they don't like them. > 3. Presentation and discussion at a face-to-face IETF meeting > is never an IETF decision, remember? What happened to the > explicit confirmation with the _real_ IETF plenary, namely the > online community? Oh, I remember. See above and below. > JCK> Nothing has appeared on > JCK> the IETF list, or in any other place that I'm following, > that JCK> would convince me that there is community consensus > against JCK> their proceeding, and > draft-daigle-adminrest-00.txt has been JCK> posted since > February and hasn't seemed to draw much negative JCK> > attention either. > > 1. So this is one of those "proceed if there is no massive > objection" kinds of decisions? Shouldn't a fundamental change > in IETF administrative structure carry an expectation of > rather more proactive, broad-based support, rather than merely > waiting for some sort of opposition constituency to assert its > ugly head? Well, maybe. Or, more specifically, "absolutely yes, that is how it should be... only the IETF pet pig hasn't been getting up to takeoff speed lately". I think it is a frightening situation, but we are approving _standards_ which only a handful of people in the relevant WG have read and understood, and the modal number of comments on IETF Last Call about such documents is zero. The two documents I cited make a rather strong case that sitting around and doing nothing in the hope that things will get spontaneously better is a seriously bad strategy. That case (or, if you prefer, problem statement) is independent of any of the options about what one might do instead. So, yes, I'd much prefer to see broad-based support for a particular option. And I'd prefer to see other options placed on the table in the usual form of I-Ds that make alternate suggestions. But no such alternatives have emerged, nor has there been any sign of a counterargument to the "sitting around waiting for things to get spontaneously better almost certainly won't work" hypothesis. And that makes this a lot, IMO, like our standards situation: some people have put a lot of effort into studying the situation and the options and have put forward a proposal. They have asked for comments on the proposal and have gotten few if any of them and there have been neither counterproposals nor coherent arguments that they are trying to solve a problem that is best left unsolved. In those situations with the standards process, we move forward, rather than sitting around waiting until massive support emerges. That low level of community review and comment makes me pretty uncomfortable --I think it should make all of us pretty uncomfortable-- but the alternatives are worse. Whether the level of specification is adequate or not depends, I think, on how far into detailed management (I'm tempted to say "micromanagement" but it is too pejorative) the community wants to go. I think the evidence is "not very far", a few of us who get anxious about anything
Re: "setting up the administrative structures we need"
John, JCK> the outlines of this were JCK> presented in plenary in Seoul and the general consensus was that JCK> people should move ahead with this process, 1. Attendance by the on-going IETF pool of participants was _very_ poor. Any attempt to claim that positive feedback at that event is somehow representative of the larger community should raise some deeper questions about IETF process. (And by the way, claiming that that room showed strong support does not match my own perception or the perception of quite a few other attendees.) 2. An "outline" is very different from a detailed specification and I carefully stated that Harald's note appears to indicate that things have moved beyond consideration and into actual implementations. If that is not what is happening, then Harald should explain what actual is happening. 3. Presentation and discussion at a face-to-face IETF meeting is never an IETF decision, remember? What happened to the explicit confirmation with the _real_ IETF plenary, namely the online community? JCK> Nothing has appeared on JCK> the IETF list, or in any other place that I'm following, that JCK> would convince me that there is community consensus against JCK> their proceeding, and draft-daigle-adminrest-00.txt has been JCK> posted since February and hasn't seemed to draw much negative JCK> attention either. 1. So this is one of those "proceed if there is no massive objection" kinds of decisions? Shouldn't a fundamental change in IETF administrative structure carry an expectation of rather more proactive, broad-based support, rather than merely waiting for some sort of opposition constituency to assert its ugly head? 2. Hopefully you are not suggesting that Leslie's document was a specification. For that matter, at the plenary there were basic problems raised with it and there has been no follow-up to those concerns. JCK> We approve standards on far less JCK> demonstration of consensus than that. We do? We approve actions where there is no history of developing a spec and, for that matter, no public spec? And when there has been effort to develop direct support? Where do we do that, John? CK> We have some, I think JCK> considerable, evidence that a large fraction of the participants JCK> in the IETF have concluded that, while they want these external JCK> administrative processes to run smoothly, efficiently, and well, JCK> they lack the interest and/or expertise to want to be deeply JCK> involved in them. So the choice is between being "deeply involved" or being entirely excluded from any meaningful review of the details? That is the pragmatic distinction you are suggesting. For that matter, those who _are_ willing to be deeply involved do not have access to the details. In fact during Leslie's plenary presentation it appeared that the details did not exist. By contrast, Harald's posting implies that they do exist now, yet have not been subject to any public specification, review and approval. JCK> Given that, what sort of public cheer do JCK> think you is needed? One that involves honest and open review and comment, of a detailed specification, John. The same as is considered required for all other IETF work. JCK> Whether or not it is critical path is, IMO, a separate question. That's why I asked it separately. JCK> Even if one ignores the more general issues raised in RFC 3716 JCK> and draft-daigle-adminrest-00.txt (and without discussing their JCK> relevancy or importance), we are in a situation in which we have JCK> a shrinking resource base relative to costs. There are a number of very different ways of dealing with our current financial problems. 1. Holding 2 meetings outside the US in one year, with the serious reduction in participation that comes with it, is NOT helpful towards reducing the financial problems, nevermind that it serves to exclude participation. 2. Constantly going to different cities is not a way to reduce costs, since there is no learning curve and no ability to re-use any special resources. 3. Signing venue contracts less than 6 months before the event is also NOT a way to get expenses under control. It is typically better to sign 2 years in advance or thereabouts. 4. Going to expensive hotels that are isolated from less expensive ones is also not a good way to ensure broad-based (and larger) participation. Note the venue for the up-coming meeting. 5. I'll just bet there are other actions that can reduce costs, no matter how resistant folks might be to them... Bottom line: We have not been managing our meetings in a way designed to reduce costs and encourage attendance. JCK> While a number of improvements JCK> have been made, most of the costs arise from a fixed base, e.g., JCK> fewer meeting attendees may mean lowered cookie costs, but JCK> doesn't lower the significant meeting costs, much less all of JCK> the other secretariat costs. We could, perhaps, also benefit from a more serious review of
Re: "setting up the administrative structures we need"
Dave, Let me respond to this, not from Harald's perspective, but from that as a semi-outside observer who is, I think, as concerned as you are, about wasting time and resources on non-critical-path efforts and about the IESG, IAB, or their respective Chairs going off half-cocked. First, while I wasn't there, every report I've gotten from people who were (including both those who were happy about it and those who weren't), was that the outlines of this were presented in plenary in Seoul and the general consensus was that people should move ahead with this process, focusing on drawing the administrative models and financial sources together as first steps in rationalizing the IETF's relationships with its professional support organizations. Nothing has appeared on the IETF list, or in any other place that I'm following, that would convince me that there is community consensus against their proceeding, and draft-daigle-adminrest-00.txt has been posted since February and hasn't seemed to draw much negative attention either. We approve standards on far less demonstration of consensus than that. We have some, I think considerable, evidence that a large fraction of the participants in the IETF have concluded that, while they want these external administrative processes to run smoothly, efficiently, and well, they lack the interest and/or expertise to want to be deeply involved in them. Given that, what sort of public cheer do think you is needed? Whether or not it is critical path is, IMO, a separate question. Even if one ignores the more general issues raised in RFC 3716 and draft-daigle-adminrest-00.txt (and without discussing their relevancy or importance), we are in a situation in which we have a shrinking resource base relative to costs. Neither the slope of meeting attendance nor that of unrestricted contributions to ISOC for the IETF is positive. While a number of improvements have been made, most of the costs arise from a fixed base, e.g., fewer meeting attendees may mean lowered cookie costs, but doesn't lower the significant meeting costs, much less all of the other secretariat costs. In that environment, having separate pools of funds, with no ability for the folks who the IETF community holds responsible for keeping things going to make priority decisions and move things around is, well, nuts. And those financial structure issues could bring us grinding to a halt -- or increase meeting fees to the point that they would become a significant barrier to participation for some people. I think that makes it critical path -- if we grind to a halt, or reach the stage at which only the very well-supported or professional standardizers can afford to participate, we are in very bad trouble: certainly that situation wouldn't contribute to our getting better substantive results out faster. Of course, most of that is discussed in RFC 3716. If it wasn't sufficiently clear, then people should have been complaining about it on the IETF list before it was published as an RFC. My recollection, although I may be confused, is that it was even Last Called. Perhaps I've missed it, but I haven't seen an outpouring of comments and complaints about its content. Just my opinion. best, john --On Saturday, 05 June, 2004 16:13 -0700 Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Harald, > > HA> 2) However, responding to the point asked - what is being > hired now is a consultant to HA> help with the activity of > setting up the administrative structures we need for the IETF > at HA> this point in time. Not the permanent general manager > of the IETF administrative support HA> function. > > > This means that you are proceeding with the changes. > > Forgive my inattention, but where is a copy of the specific > plan that was reviewed and approved by the IETF for these > structural changes, and when did the IETF approve it? > > A separate question: To what extent is this effort taking > already-scarce IETF resources and serving as a distraction > from making the IETF produce better material in a more timely > fashion? > > Clarifications would be appreciated. > > > d/ > -- > Dave Crocker <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com> > Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, > <fax:+1.866.358.5301> > > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
"setting up the administrative structures we need"
Harald, HA> 2) However, responding to the point asked - what is being hired now is a consultant to HA> help with the activity of setting up the administrative structures we need for the IETF at HA> this point in time. Not the permanent general manager of the IETF administrative support HA> function. This means that you are proceeding with the changes. Forgive my inattention, but where is a copy of the specific plan that was reviewed and approved by the IETF for these structural changes, and when did the IETF approve it? A separate question: To what extent is this effort taking already-scarce IETF resources and serving as a distraction from making the IETF produce better material in a more timely fashion? Clarifications would be appreciated. d/ -- Dave Crocker <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com> Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301> ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
