Subject: feedback & blog entry

From: IETF Chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 13:10:16 +0300

One of things that I feel is important for the chair to do is to talk to various IETF contributors - not just on this list! :-) - and try to understand what issues they have, either technical or otherwise. Here's a small overview report of my recent effort to talk to various participants and organisations in China.

   http://www.ietf.org/blog/2013/09/china/

These specific observations aside, I wanted to highlight that while I try to talk to many people, it will take a long time and ultimately be a very small subset of people. Hence if you have feedback on how the IETF is doing, what new things we should do, or what we should differently - contact me. I'd love to know - and I can also speak for the rest of the people in leadership positions - that ideas, experiences, and feedback is always appreciated. Let us know.

Jari Arkko
IETF Chair

---

From: todd <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 10:02:48 -0700

Issues: OK lets start here...

1)    Structure and Political Representation inside the IETF

Bluntly the IETF@IETF WG is a silo which has erected a wall around 
itself to make it the controlling power - the problem is its failure to 
provide proper integration and acceptance practices for all other IETF 
members

That means it rules the IETF and all of the subordinate entities like 
IANA, ARIN, and the ISOC to some extent though this process with no 
formal representation of the entities within the IETF. There are clearly 
legal issues with this any sane person should see - and I mean that.

This also means the [email-masked] group may not make any modifications 
to the Use or Publication Licenses for anything that is not approved by 
the specific standards generation teams and their sponsors but also the 
WG's themselves.

in fact I would suggest a new Responsibilities RFC be produced to 
control what a WG Director and AD are specifically (and in a legal sense 
within the IETF and its process) responsible for.

2)    Transparency

Accountability - there is NO transparency inside the IETF which would 
meet the audit requirements of any of the participating orgs or 
governments. That means how tghe oversight is performed and all of the 
IESG meetings must become transparent. Any and all communications both 
in-line and OOB must be disclosed and maintained. It is what it is... 
sorry.

OPINION: The IETF quantifies the Wild West Mentality that is still the 
Internet IMHO

3)    Contractual Process

The IETF group makes changes to IETF process which are untested and 
unapproved by the members at large; That means it (the [email-masked] WG 
pers se) is changing and enforcing changes to IP contracts it is not a 
direct party to .

4)    The IETF has a freaking membership - get over it.

There is a membership and participants. Those parties are contractual 
participants in the process and any changes to the contracts or the 
participation process MUST be vetted by and approved by the Membership 
At Large and not shoved up the collective ass of the rest of the IETF by 
this illustrious group (does that language offend you - good wake up).

5)    Stop hiding behind the 107 exemption - it only belongs to IRTF.

The IETF process and IP disclosure processes need new review. The ONLY 
entity who can claim a research exemption here is the IRTF so the IETF 
publication license MUST be immediately amended to include notice of 
this and a new take down process for disputed IP be put in place...

Every publication house has a Take-Down rule for Copyright Violation and 
IP ownership claims. The IETF has facilitated a lie that it is doing 
RESEARCH - _/*wrong that is the IRTF's prerogative. */_

The IETF is in fact creating an IP which is collaboratively structured 
and as such it is not a research process it is a process of publication 
for use and that means the IETF itself has no 107 exception here. That 
is the purview of the IRTF  only...

Sorry but you folks did that to yourselves by not embedding the IRTF 
research Charter in the IETF itself.

Todd

-- 
Todd S. Glassey
Personal Disclaimers Apply

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 09:36:17 -0700

Hi Jari,
At 03:10 20-09-2013, IETF Chair wrote:
>One of things that I feel is important for the chair to do is to 
>talk to various IETF contributors - not just on this list! :-) - and 
>try to understand what issues they have, either technical or 
>otherwise. Here's a small overview report of my recent effort to talk

I read the article.  As a comment about the last paragraph, the 
metric being used is not the best in my humble opinion.  Spencer 
Dawkins made an insightful comment which I would look into if I was 
looking for a better metric.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: IETF Chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 21:22:24 +0300

SM:

Thanks for the feedback.

> I read the article.  As a comment about the last paragraph, the metric being used is not the best in my humble opinion.

You are referring to attendance and authoring RFCs? I agree, of course. I apologize for using a metric that is, at best, partial. My only defense is that it was what I had easily available :-( I do realise that real engagement from different types of organisations and people and areas of the world goes to far more fundamental issues than showing numbers of people. True involvement and effect is what counts. As we know, that does not necessarily correlate with any particular statistic...

>  Spencer Dawkins made an insightful comment which I would look into if I was looking for a better metric.

Ok. Which comment are you referring to? I'm sorry, too much e-mail to know what you are referring to. I'd be interested in better metrics.

Jari

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 15:47:30 -0500

> Ok. Which comment are you referring to? I'm sorry, too much e-mail to know what you are referring to. I'd be interested in better metrics.

Hi, Jari,

I'm not saying that I make so many insightful comments that I can't keep 
them straight, but I wasn't sure, either :D

I'm guessing SM is referring to this one ...

https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=933&k3=12404&k4=1&tid=1380055577

Spencer

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:54:05 -0700

Hi Jari,
At 11:22 24-09-2013, IETF Chair wrote:
>You are referring to attendance and authoring RFCs? I agree, of 
>course. I apologize for using a metric that is, at best, partial. My 
>only defense is that it was what I had easily available :-( I do 
>realise that real engagement from different types of organisations 
>and people and areas of the world goes to far more fundamental 
>issues than showing numbers of people. True involvement and effect 
>is what counts. As we know, that does not necessarily correlate with 
>any particular statistic...

The metric which you provided on your own time has been useful.  With 
these statistics there wouldn't have anything to look at to get a 
view of IETF work.  I agree that true involvement and effort is what 
counts.  Showing the number of people might be the least bad way to 
understand what's happening and whether the efforts are successful.

>Ok. Which comment are you referring to? I'm sorry, too much e-mail 
>to know what you are referring to. I'd be interested in better metrics.

 From http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg79780.html

   "It's pretty tempting for new participants to submit drafts that they like,
    and maybe reaching out to their office mates as co-authors, but to be
    effective in the IETF, participants have to learn how to collaborate with
    folks from other IETF sponsors"

How does one collaborate in the IETF?  How does one contribute in the 
IETF?  What's the level of involvement at the country level?  Is the 
involvement from a country increasing if we look at the number of 
people involved?  Please note that the questions are not meant as 
questions for you to reply to.

I am not sure whether there is a way to generate statistics to get a 
view of the above.    It may be worth pursuing if other people 
believe that it would be a better metric.

Regards,
-sm