Subject: Out-of-area ADs [Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps]

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 07:51:08 +1300

On 26/12/2014 08:25, IETF Chair wrote:
> The IESG proposes
> to experiment with this approach initially by shifting to out-of-area ADs for
> RADEXT, DIME, LMAP, and ANIMA, perhaps with another few WGs to follow.

I have some doubt whether this approach should ever be considered
normal, rather than exceptional. If it becomes considered normal, it
would imply that our assignment of WGs to Areas, and of ADs to Areas,
are often incorrect.

There is also a practical aspect - meeting scheduling. At the moment,
a rough-and-ready rule is: never schedule more than 2 sessions for the
same Area at the same time, which guarantees that an AD is available
for each sessions. With numerous out-of-area ADs, this aspect of
scheduling will become very complicated.

I have a specific concern about considering an out-of-area AD for
ANIMA. It's a new WG and the current AD invested heavily in the
chartering process. I would be very concerned about changing that
before the WG is well established.

    Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 08:25:09 +1300

...
> III.  MERGING OF UPPER LAYER PROTOCOL AREAS
> 
> ... the IESG is proposing to merge the APP, RAI, and TSV
> areas into one combined Network Applications (NAPP) area. From March
> 2015-March 2016, this combined area would be overseen by the five remaining
> ADs from APP, RAI, and TSV, with some redistribution of WG shepherding
> responsibilities among them to balance workloads. DISPATCH, TSVWG, and APPSAWG
> would continue to function much as they currently do.

I've been trying to think of a nice way to say this, but there isn't one.

I think this is a terrible idea. It would create a very unwieldy structure,
effectively an IESG within the IESG. It would only take about a week for the
5 ADs concerned to decide that they need weekly coordination meetings; after
a month they'd discover the need for a well-defined chair for those
meetings.
Depending on the individuals, the result might be a power bloc within the
IESG. Given that there might also be a mini-power bloc formed by 3
Routing ADs,
the dynamics of the IESG would be very different and chairing it could
become
rather challenging.

I fully appreciate the RAI/Apps issue. There's clear overlap and a lot has
changed since RAI was created. I agree you have to do something there.

However, the merge with Transport is technically strange. Agreed, there
are four or five WGs in Transport that could equally well be in Apps, and
there are some in RAI that could equally well be in Transport. But beyond
that, I just don't see the synergy. (Where we need synergy, we know how
to create it, e.g. the DART WG.) Wouldn't it be better to rebalance by
moving a few groups from RAI to Transport, and the solve the RAI/Apps
problem on its own? (Since I assume that everything is on the table,
there are 2 or 3 Apps WGs that could move to Security, for example.)

Regards
    Brian

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 19:47:37 +0000

Hi Brian,

Just on the generic issues you raised (i.e. not on anima)...

> would imply that our assignment of WGs to Areas, and of ADs to Areas,

Or that the area definitions need re-examination, or that cross-area
work has become common for some other reason. At minimum, if we have
this tool, and if it's overused, we have another way to detect that
something needs re-adjusting. In fact, I think it'll be more useful
than that myself.

> scheduling will become very complicated.

Actually that's gotten better with the new tooling that handles
conflicts reasonably well. And in most cases where we've mentioned
possible out-of-area ADs I think we'd likely already have considered
the same conflict.

Cheers,
S.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 16:16:09 -0500

Hi Jari,

First, thanks to the IESG for really thinking about what the needs of the IETF are and will be.

I think it's fine to add the shepherd AD role as an experiment, and if routing needs more people then let's get'em. 

I'd like to understand how you expect the various job descriptions to change. In particular, with regard to NAPP (or  it ends up being called), do you intend to simply combine the three? I ask because if a goal is to encourage people to be ADs, if the description reads as though nobody would be qualified to do All of That, then nobody will apply.  Knowing this I'm sure you already have lots of thoughts on how to guide NOMCOM. Could you share?

Thanks,

Eliot

> On Dec 25, 2014, at 2:26 PM, IETF Chair <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Dear Community:
> 
> In October, we let you know that we would be coming up with some proposals
> and consulting with you on the topic of re-organizing the IESG and the IETF 
> areas with the intent to increase flexibility as IETF work evolves, to ensure that
> all IETF work is covered by an AD, and to balance and reduce the workload
> across the ADs [1]. We committed to developing a re-organization proposal by
> May 2015 (thus including ADs that will be newly seated in March 2015). We
> have taken several steps since then toward that goal: we recommended that the
> nomcom not to fill the APP AD vacancy in the current nomcom cycle [2], and we
> are taking steps to redistribute workload in order to allow for more resources
> to be focused on YANG model coordination [3].
> 
> This message provides an outline of further steps we propose to take in 2015
> as part of the re-organization and invites community feedback on those steps.
> Step I below is already in progress. Step II in particular requires timely
> action, and therefore we are requesting community feedback by January 15,
> 2015 on that step in particular and on the overall proposal.
> 
> None of the steps below should be viewed as permanent or overly constraining
> how the IESG and the areas might be organized in future years. In general we’d
> like to increase the ability for the IESG to be flexible going forward. We are
> suggesting the steps below as measures to experiment with as a means to
> determine their effectiveness. The IESG intends to continue to re-evaluate all
> of the steps on a regular basis.
> 
> 
> PRINCIPLES
> 
> The IESG believes the re-organization should proceed according to the
> following principles:
> 
> 1) Agility: The IESG should be able to adapt as Internet engineering evolves.
> When work focus shifts and new technologies emerge, it is critical that the
> the IESG can follow the shift and effectively manage the new work.
> 
> 2) Relevance: The organization of the technical work must facilitate the
> IETF's continued relevance to the industry. As we change how we develop
> technology throughout the Internet, the IETF must be able to change how our
> standards development works with the technology development.
> 
> 3) Flexibility: The organization of the IESG and of the technical areas should
> accommodate variations in workloads, time commitments, and AD skillsets, as
> well as changes in those over time. It is important to make it possible for
> more IETF participants to be able to serve as Area Directors and to make the
> work co-exist with their normal jobs.
> 
> 4) Sustainability: The Area Director role should be a position that
> accomplished engineers aspire to and that employers want to support. We should
> emphasize the "steering" and "director" aspects, supporting and guiding the
> technical work in the working groups.
> 
> 
> THREE STEPS
> 
> We suggest taking the three steps described below to fulfill these principles.
> 
> 
> I.  FURTHER SHIFTING OF WG RESPONSIBILITY TO OUT-OF-AREA ADS
> 
> The ability to react to changes in the industry, for example the IESG YANG
> Model Work Redistribution [3], requires flexibility within the IETF leadership
> positions. There are numerous instances where the constituency of a WG exists
> in a particular IETF area, but the most appropriate AD for that work happens
> to be in a different area, or where the ADs in the area are simply overloaded
> and an AD outside of the area is perfectly capable of managing the work. To
> address these possibilities, the IESG is moving towards a model where a WG can
> exist in one area, but its shepherding AD comes from another area. This
> flexibility will allow the IESG to apply its skills where they can be of most
> use while still keeping related WGs together within an area. The IESG proposes
> In order to achieve the above, there is some tools development work needed.
> Many components of the IETF tool set (e.g., the datatracker) make assumptions
> about WG/AD relationships based on the WG's assigned area. That issue is
> currently being worked on by the tools team, but will take a few months' time.
> During this intermediate period (prior to the tools work completing), the
> cross-area shepherding effort will be done informally by the IESG. This
> informal approach will address:
> 
> a. Shepherding AD - Each WG will still have an AD assigned to it from its
> area, referred to as the Home Area AD. The actual shepherding AD will be
> temporarily listed as the Technical Advisor. The shepherding AD will be in
> charge of all WG management issues. The IESG will develop a way to explicitly
> indicate the shepherding AD on the WG's charter page.
> 
> b. E-mail aliases - WG chairs and participants who wish to reach the ADs for a
> WG via the <foo>-ads tools aliases should explicitly include the AD listed as
> Technical Advisor for the WG.
> 
> c. Document shepherding - When a WG chair submits a publication request, that
> request will flow to the Home Area AD. The Home Area AD should then delegate
> shepherding responsibilities to the shepherding AD for handling.
> 
> d. Appeals - IETF participants should be directed to send any appeals related
> to the WG to the shepherding AD rather than the Home Area AD.
> 
> 
> II.  ADDING A THIRD RTG AD
> 
> The IESG is considering requesting that the currently seated nomcom select an
> additional routing AD, such that two new routing ADs, rather than one, would
> be seated for two-year terms in spring 2015. The reasoning behind this request
> is that the load in the RTG area is currently unsustainably high. The
> placement of a third AD will have the effect of spreading that load such that
> the time requirement may now be more consistent with the work loads of ADs in
> other areas. The total number of ADs on the IESG would not change if the APP
> seat remains vacant.
> 
> This request is further justified by the considerable increase in
> management-related work in the RTG area. Specifically, there are a lot of new
> YANG models being written. Although the coordination of YANG across the IETF
> falls as the responsibility of the OPS ADs (specifically the Management AD) it
> is expected that the RTG ADs will need to work on an increasing number of YANG
> documents as well.
> 
> If an additional RTG AD were to be seated, the IESG would propose to move
> three working groups from the INT area to the RTG area to balance AD loads:
> L2TPEXT, LISP, and TRILL.
> 
> As with all of the proposed organizational changes, the IESG would expect to
> re-evaluate the need for this third RTG AD in future years and balance that
> need against the need to have other skill sets or more generalist roles
> represented on the IESG.
> 
> Work is underway to create support for this model in our process documentation:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dawkins-iesg-one-or-more-04.
> 
> 
> As previously noted [1], a significant amount of the work that is going on in
> the APP area pertains to the web protocols, but that has a good deal of
> crossover with work in RAI. There is also some crossover work between the APP
> and TSV areas. To accommodate these overlaps and provide better WG management
> across these three areas, the IESG is proposing to merge the APP, RAI, and TSV
> The NAPP ADs would continue to encourage progress towards closure of the many
> WGs in the area that are close to completing their chartered work. As such,
> the IESG would expect to request in the 2015-16 nomcom cycle a reduction in
> NAPP AD headcount, yielding four seated NAPP ADs starting in March 2016. If
> possible, we could reduce down to 4 NAPP ADs prior to that time and re-assign
> the fifth AD’s duties to further help balance IESG load.
> 
> Jari Arkko for the IESG
> 
> 
> REFERENCES
> 
> [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg13314.html 
> [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg13364.html 
> [3] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg13576.html

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 21:29:51 +0000

> On Dec 25, 2014, at 11:25 AM, IETF Chair <[email-masked]> wrote:

I find the date, um, "interesting”. Personally, on December 25, I am involved with other activities. I note that my company generally makes financial announcements a few minutes after NASDAQ closes, and a variety of organizations make announcements when they think nobody is listening. Is the IETF...?

> technical work in the working groups.

The principles make sense to me.

What I might suggest is that the IESG first wonder among itself whether it has the right areas. Deciding to blur the boundaries between them might work in the short term, but ultimately isn’t an organizing principle.

Suggesting that [email-masked] should include every email address in the charter makes sense.

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 16:04:44 -0600

For maximum flexibility just make "areas" much more informal, or even
drop the concept completely.  Instead just dole out "ADs" (now just
plain IESG members) to WGs as the IESG sees fit, perhaps in consultation
with WG chairs.  For new WGs, the sponsoring IESG members would be it,
and if there isn't one then one should be assigned (or the WG should not
be chartered).

This would allow the IESG to balance its members' load as the IESG sees
fit.

And it helps a bit with scheduling: since ADs can't be in two meetings
at the same time, one way to ensure non-conflicting meeting slot
assignments for N WGs is to have one AD for all N.  :)

I rather like this.  IESG members should be generalists who can
specialize as needed.  Specialist reviews are already available from the
various directorates anyways.

One downside would be less stability for WG/"AD" assignments, but where
that's seen as disruptive the IESG would -presumably- work hard to keep
stability.

Anyways, that's my take of what the IESG is saying here: "areas" no
longer work as an organizing principle.  Assuming I read that right, I
agree.

Nico
--

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 17:13:09 -0500

> a month they'd discover the need for a well-defined chair for those

The APP, TSV and RAI ADs could do that now.   Why would the name change mean that suddenly they'd form a cabal if there hasn't already been demand to form one?   I think you overestimate the willingness of ADs to add more meetings to our already busy schedules.   And for that matter, the utility of such a move.

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 17:27:26 -0500

Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> ... the IESG is proposing to merge the APP, RAI, and TSV areas into one
>> combined Network Applications (NAPP) area. From March 2015-March 2016,
>> this combined area would be overseen by the five remaining ADs from
>> APP, RAI, and TSV, with some redistribution of WG shepherding
>> responsibilities among them to balance workloads. DISPATCH, TSVWG,
>> and APPSAWG would continue to function much as they currently do.
> 

   I couldn't think of a nice-way, either... :^(

> effectively an IESG within the IESG.

   +1

> It would only take about a week for the 5 ADs concerned to decide that
> they need weekly coordination meetings; after a month they'd discover
> the need for a well-defined chair for those meetings.

   Or...

   They wouldn't discover this need. :^(

> IESG.

   (Actually, I don't worry about that...)

> Given that there might also be a mini-power bloc formed by 3 Routing ADs,
> become rather challenging.

   <narrative-scribe-hat = On>

   There is in fact a lot of cooperation between the two ADs in an area.
Technically, I suppose this could lead to a "power-block" where one of
them places a DISCUSS and the other supports it -- but that simply isn't
happening.

   This kind of cooperation has been improving quite a bit over the last
five years: whenever one of the ADs in an area is absent from a telechat,
the other knows enough to advise how to proceed on the documents in
question. I can't imagine how this will get easier with three ADs to an
area.

   (Nonetheless, I support the IESG choosing to experiment with three
RTG ADs for one year.)

   But going from two to five in the yet-unnamed APPS area worries me.

   <narrative-scribe-hat = Off>

> changed since RAI was created. I agree you have to do something there.

   I could support that also as an experiment. I'm less sure it'll work
well; but so long as it's an experiment we can back out of, I'm OK.

> there are some in RAI that could equally well be in Transport.

   Those are things the IESG should just-do.

> But beyond that, I just don't see the synergy.

   <narrative-scribe-hat = On>

   I well remember IESG discussion over the problem of finding TSV ADs.
IMHO, we've made progress, and no longer give the NOMCOM impossible
job descriptions. I worry that merging TSV into APPS may be an attempt
to solve a problem which is no longer there.

   I worry even more that this attempt at merging will generate another
impossible job-description for a larger area.

   <narrative-scribe-hat = Off>

> (Where we need synergy, we know how to create it, e.g. the DART WG.)
> Wouldn't it be better to rebalance by moving a few groups from RAI to
> Transport, and the solve the RAI/Apps problem on its own?

   +1

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 11:28:22 +1300

> This would allow the IESG to balance its members' load as the IESG sees

Interesting - I think this is free from the danger of a fragmented IESG
that I mentioned in my "Mashing areas" reply, if it could be made to
work. Maybe the Areas could survive as AD specializations, but not
as globs of WGs.

    Brian

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 16:47:54 -0600

> work. Maybe the Areas could survive as AD specializations, but not

Exactly.  (I share your concerns about IESGs-within-IESGs.)

And WGs could participate (via feedback) in the "AD" assignment process.
If you're not happy with your WG's AD, ask for a new one.  Hopefully
this wouldn't happen much.

The nomcom's work might get harder, or easier -- I'm not sure.  If
there's a vacancy to be filled: look for a generalist, unless there's a
particular specialty that the IESG is badly in need of.

Again, if too much structure is the problem (the WG square pegs not
fitting in the "area" circular slots), then reducing the amount of
structure seems likely better than adding structure.

Nico
--

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 16:53:33 -0600

> structure seems likely better than adding structure.

Reducing the amount of structure now might allow for a better structure
-that we can't yet see- to arise organically.

If we're going to experiment, try reducing structure.

Another benefit of this approach is that it will allow the IESG to be
right-sized more easily, with the IESG asking for more members if it's
overloaded, and the NOMCOM not nominating anyone for open-but-unneeded
positions.

Nico
--

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 19:23:03 -0500

--On Saturday, December 27, 2014 08:25 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> However, the merge with Transport is technically strange.
> Agreed, there are four or five WGs in Transport that could
> equally well be in Apps, and there are some in RAI that could
> equally well be in Transport. But beyond that, I just don't
> see the synergy. (Where we need synergy, we know how to create
> it, e.g. the DART WG.) Wouldn't it be better to rebalance by
> moving a few groups from RAI to Transport, and the solve the
> RAI/Apps problem on its own? (Since I assume that everything
> is on the table, there are 2 or 3 Apps WGs that could move to
> Security, for example.)

Brian,

I agreed with everything you said up to the last sentence or two
but, given them, am going to violate my promise to myself to
stay out of this.

Speaking as an participant in ARPANET/Internet applications work
since long before the IETF existed, an observer of the
applications area during its entire duration, and a former Apps
AD, areas and area boundaries really do make a difference.
Certainly there are work items (and hence WGs) that overlap
between Apps and Security.  There are, or have been, overlaps
between Apps tasks and almost everything one can think of -- the
two-way split of RFC 1122/1123 was merely the best division Bob
and the other participants in that effort could come up with at
the time, not a really bright and clear line.

But the differences area assignments make can have effects on
the Internet that go far beyond the management/steering of the
IETF.  As an example, at and before the time of RRC 1123, the
DNS was considered an application.   At some point, it was
reassigned into the Internet area (I don't remember the reasons
but recall them being a little bit arbitrary).  A lot of the
focus since then has been on DNS features and operations as ends
in themselves. Questions like "how will this be used", "how will
it affect users", and "what will be the implications on the
Internet's applications architecture" have sometimes (or often)
gotten lost in the process.   It is also the case that there has
never been a lot of deep database expertise in the IETF, but
there has almost always been more of it among active Apps area
participants than in the Internet area and that, too, has design
consequences, especially when discussions break out about, e.g.,
how far DNS-style aliases can reasonably be extended or what the
implications are of flattening a hierarchical database
architecture.  Sometimes those discussions don't even happen, at
least until it is too late -- I think that is another
consequence of area choices.   

The problem runs in both directions, of course.   We've had a
lot of complete nonsense about what the DNS can be expected to
do in the Apps area.  That nonsense has gotten caught and cut
off because ultimately implementability and physics still
usually triumph around here, but maybe better ideas would have
emerged had there been more informed discussion earlier. 

The same issues end up at the Security / Applications boundary.
We've had things at that boundary done in Security that has
ended up with symptoms of too little involvement from those who
build and deploy things that face the user.  And we've had
things done in Apps that have had security issues that have been
fixed too late in the process to do things really well.

Of course, that is another risk of a five-AD superarea.  If
there is only one job description, and parts of it are easier to
fill than others, there is some risk of ending up with five
people with the same specializations and serious gaps in deep
understanding of the other topics covered by the area.  We've
seen that before: while I think we've mostly been lucky,
combining Ops and Management did not nothing to guarantee that
the IESG would always have someone skilled and experienced in
Ops and someone skilled and experienced in Network Management.

I don't suggest there is an answer to how these choices should
be made.  There are always tradeoffs.  But I think we put
ourselves in jeopardy when we assume that a particular piece of
work can be placed in one area or another, even when it overlaps
somewhat, as a purely management decision with no protocol
design consequences.  

One additional observation on Jari's note.  I'm all in favor of
the YANG work, at least as far as I understand it.  But, wishing
that Mike Padlipsky were here to say this in his much more
eloquent way, when a standards body starts concentrating major
energy on (in our case) network models and modeling rather than
on protocols and "what works" / "doing it right", it is in big,
perhaps fatal, trouble because the next step is for applied
network engineering and protocol design to start giving way to
models and rules that go beyond "works and interoperates" for
evaluating what is acceptable -- both the refuge of
theoreticians with too little connection to reality and
professional standardizers who need rules and models to replace
thinking.  Signs of organizing the IESG around the YANG work
scare me in that regard.  Again, nothing wrong with the work
itself and I admire some of the bits I've read.  But, when a
modeling language starts becoming an area-like focus, I think we
need to ask deep questions about where we are headed.

best,
    john

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 03:36:17 +0200

> I find the date, um, "interesting”. Personally, on December 25, I am involved with other activities. I note that my company generally makes financial announcements a few minutes after NASDAQ closes…

I apologize for the date. Obviously we will ensure that there’s sufficient time to provide feedback. We posted the message as soon as it was ready, the IESG had worked hard before the holidays on this. Please do not let this discussion disturb you holidays; I myself do not plan to work much if at all before next year, and there is certainly enough time to discuss once we are there.

Jari

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 03:47:13 +0200

Eliot,

> I'd like to understand how you expect the various job descriptions to change. In particular, with regard to NAPP (or  it ends up being called), do you intend to simply combine the three? I ask beca…

Good question.

The descriptions have to change. In the case of NAPP, that’s a description that we need by summer 2015.

As you point out, it would be a bad idea to require people that can do everything. I think the answer is that among the set of ADs covering the area, they should be able to cover the technical topics in that area. Preferably with some overlap. This isn’t all that different from what has happened in the past with big areas such as INT; no AD usually has the breadth to cover everything alone, but together they can do a reasonable job. Putting the puzzle together means some more work for the nomcom, however.

Jari

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 06:49:57 -0700

> consequence of area choices. 

I find your arguments unconvincing as they relate to the reorg that's being discussed, because there are _always_ blind spots.   Expecting Area Directors to be omniscient doesn't scale--there just aren't enough of us that are.

That said, I think that your observation here is correct, and ought to be addressed.   I just don't agree that it leads to the conclusion you drew.   What you are describing here is the classic cross-area review problem.   If ADs workloads allowed for it, perhaps we would do a better job at this.   I can certainly imagine a change in structure where each working group has a responsible AD, but also a second AD who tries to pay attention to what the working group is doing, from a different area.   What I just said isn't the actual solution, because ADs don't currently have that much bandwidth, but perhaps there's a pony in there somewhere.

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 11:15:06 -0500

On 12/26/14 1:51 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> If it becomes considered normal, it

Do note the explanation for this in our original message, as I think you 
have an embedded assumption that's at least non-obvious:

> There are numerous instances where the constituency of a WG exists
> and an AD outside of the area is perfectly capable of managing the work.

To expand a bit: We do think having WGs in particular Areas is useful, 
and we think generally we're getting our assignment of WGs to particular 
Areas correct: At the scale of an Area, it is generally quite obvious 
and natural that the kind of work we want done in a WG falls to a 
particular IETF constituency, and those folks are normally in a 
particular Area.

However, we have not found that ADs are so specialized that there is a 
"correct" AD for every WG, or that the AD whose main area (or Area) of 
expertise is always the best person to manage any particular WG. There 
are obvious examples like APP WGs that, while really needing the 
constituency of the APP area to come to consensus on the work, really 
are better coordinated by a SEC AD. But there are also examples of ADs 
like (to take an easy example) Spencer, who has perfectly good layer-3 
*and* layer-4 chops, and for any given WG he might be the ideal AD, 
whether it's an INT WG or an TSV WG. Just because we have Spencer be the 
responsible AD for an INT WG doesn't mean we've incorrectly assigned him 
to TSV (his protestations notwithstanding). He may be a perfect fit for 
the overall guiding of the TSV Area, and having him think broadly about 
those issues might be exactly what we want him to do. But for a given 
INT WG we might be perfectly comfortable that the Area-wide issues will 
be well-handled by the participants in the WG, and Spencer's skills at 
AD and his particular expertise might be the best fit for shepherding 
that WG's work through the process.

We think the current way we've been doing assignments are a bit too 
rigid. It *should* be normal for us to assign specific WGs to the best 
AD for that WG, even if the best AD for the Area happens to be a 
different AD. That flexibility should let us redistribute the load as 
needed, and hopefully make it easier for the NomCom to fill slots.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 10:33:00 -0800

On 12/28/2014 8:15 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> are better coordinated by a SEC AD.

Pete,

Without commenting on any of the surrounding decisions or on-going
discussion, I'm curious about the above.  And my query is meant to be
basic, not critical.

It's been a long-standing assumption that the above view you cite is
correct, and it certainly seems logical.

But after now having watched some working group assignments of this
type, I couldn't tell you what actual benefit there was.  Note, for
example, that the coordinating area director does not make principal
contributions to the technical work of the group.

In fact, there have arguably been some problems, given that participants
active in the 'coordinating' area often lack much experience with the
nature and needs of the 'visiting' working group.

More generally, perhaps your comment:

> However, we have not found that ADs are so specialized that there is a "correct" AD for every WG,

raises the possibility that AD job descriptions ought to make explicit
reference to cross-area skills?  This, of course, leads to the challenge
of figuring out what that means, in pragmatic terms.

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 08:09:28 +1300

On 29/12/2014 07:33, Dave Crocker wrote:
...
> raises the possibility that AD job descriptions ought to make
> explicit reference to cross-area skills?  This, of course, leads to
> the challenge of figuring out what that means, in pragmatic terms.

This ties back into Nico's point about maybe flattening the hierarchy (*)
and essentially abolishing areas as such. I have much sympathy with that,
although it's a bit scary. But it means that we would indeed change the
criteria for picking ADs. We wouldn't be looking for, say, a Transport AD
who is a widely recognised expert on congestion control, or a Security AD
who is competent to verify a crypto algorithm. In fact, over-specialisation
would be a *disqualification* for serving on the IESG.

Serving as a Gen-ART reviewer has been a great experience for me, but has
often forced me out of my technical comfort zone. It would be the same
for the IESG in such a new order. They would have to depend more than
today on expert reviewers.

(*) I have just read "The Innovators" by Walter Isaacson, which I highly
recommend as history of our corner of the world. He makes the point that
successful innovation in our technology has mainly taken place in
flattened hierarchies, or despite the hierarchy. The IETF is mentioned
a couple of times in the book, along with names like Cerf, Kahn,
Berners-Lee and Crocker (the other one).

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 13:27:20 -0600

> nature and needs of the 'visiting' working group.

To date, we really haven't changed the AD without changing the area as 
well, and my experience is it's the *area* move that results in the 
problems rather than the coordinating AD. That is, I think you're 
exactly right that it's the *area's* lack of experience with the nature 
and needs of visiting WGs that results in the problem, but that (and 
YMMV) the AD assigned is really not what makes the difference. This also 
goes to Nico and Brian's point, with which I disagree: Areas themselves 
are *not* as flexible, and I think that's an OK thing: Areas do have 
particular ways of working on problems, and WGs do tend to have a good 
fit with those modes of working. Moving WGs from their "natural" area to 
another one does not seem to help cross-area review all that much, but 
does sometimes cause there to be a lack of the right people from the 
home area in the room. (I think having a "foreign" AD *can* help the 
cross-area problem, but that's a different discussion.)

> of figuring out what that means, in pragmatic terms.

Maybe. I think individuals always come with some cross-area skills, so 
it might be reasonable to stick with the kinds of area-specific 
descriptions we give to the NomCom now and expect that there will 
naturally be enough cross-area abilities to make things work. But we do 
in fact do this sort of thing for the IAB: We tell them to "make sure 
you get someone with i18n clue" or "congestion control clue" or "DNS 
clue", and the NomCom has been known to look at the slate and make sure 
there's *someone* with that sort of clue, even if there's nobody with 
the particular expertise. I could see doing the same sort of thing for 
the IESG cross-area skills without putting too much of an additional 
burden on the NomCom.

pr

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 14:14:06 -0600

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 08:09:28AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> although it's a bit scary. [...]

I get the fear.  But I think the risks are manageable with a simple
prescription:

>                     [...]. But it means that we would indeed change the
> criteria for picking ADs. [...]

Here's my high-level proposal:

   We need an IESG mostly populated by generalists who can specialize,
   and a few specialists who can generalize.

It's a compromise, of course.  You've all heard the about the jack of
all trades, master of none...  And having a specialist for every
possible, relevant specialization is expensive (which I think is why
we're discussing this _at all_).

But here's the thing: it is actually expected and required of most
people, over their lengthy (nowadays) lives, that they will adapt and
change all sorts of things, changing careers, and becoming experts in
new fields.  At least smart people anyways, which the IESG had better be
chock-full of.

It's fair to say that some IESG members will be more expert in
"security", and others in "transport", but damn it, it ought to be the
case that the neither is completely ignorant of the principles and even
details that the other deals with.

How the IESG members spread the workload amongst each other is not that
interesting to me, really -- I have better things to concern myself with
(since I'm not on the IESG).  That they do it effectively is, and that
they don't consequently drop important things by the wayside is too.  We
already have directorate reviews to assist IESG reviews, and IESG review
already provides an opportunity for the full power of all the IESG's
members to be applied to every document crossing its path.  What more
can we ask for?

>                    [...]. We wouldn't be looking for, say, a Transport AD

Yes-ish.  I don't mind having a few specialists whose job is to prevent
the sorts of gross mistakes that... the IESG is there to prevent.  I
think the specializations needed would be few, maybe just three,
roughly:

 - security (the sorts of people who can tell that your protocol has
   security problems; not necessarily cryptographers),
 - networking (the sorts of people who can tell you that your protocol
   will cause harm to the Internet, or will fail to scale),
 - and operations (the sorts of people who can tell you that you're
   using DNS incorrectly).

All other specializations should be selected for (or against) on the
basis of what is needed more of at the time.

> today on expert reviewers.

Yes, and they've already been doing that anyways.

Nico
--

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 16:13:35 -0500

Hi,

(I'm responding to the IESG's proposal -- and to Nico's mail in
particular -- as an individual only, even though I mention some IAB
activities below.)  

>  - and operations (the sorts of people who can tell you that you're

On this particular bullet, I'll just observe that, if you ask 10 DNS
people, you will get a list of at least 11 reasons why you're Doing It
Wrong.  Nevertheless,

> basis of what is needed more of at the time.

I think this is the key point.

I like Nico's suggestion primarily because I think the proposal the
IESG has made has the disadvantages of both the existing, ADs-per-area
structure, and of the little-structure Nico is proposing.  That is,
the IESG-proposed structure still has tight coupling of ADs to areas,
though some areas would be better-supplied than others.  That means
that there's still a need for the Nomcom to match candidates to an
individual area, and there will be the occasional AD who "guards" his
or her area too zealously or pays too little attention to things
outside the area.  At the same time, both the areas that are large in
this new proposal, and the cross-area management assignment
suggestion, have all the issues of Nico's proposal: the nomcom has a
much harder time figuring out exactly what skills are needed, and the
IESG will have to spend the operational/managerial overhead of
aligning WG assignments with inidviduals instead of allowing the area
co-ADs to split up the work equitably.

Nico's suggestion does have the strength that, if one is going to tear
things up and try something new anyway, there seems little benefit in
going half-way.

Part of the issue here may in fact be that the areas, while clear in
the middle, are often indistinct at their edges.  This turns out to
match what has been happening to the Internet architecure too, as the
ITAT workshop and the IAB's IP Stack Evolution program both suggest.
It could be that over time we will find more natural boundaries for
areas, but I rather like the idea that the next nomcom gets from the
IESG a list of general characteristics and specific expertise that the
IESG needs, and gets a pool of people that don't fit in a single slot.
The Nomcom already needs to do this sort of thing for the IAB, so it
won't be a different work style.

(This does, of course, raise the question of whether we need two
bodies that are selected more or less the same way.  I know some
people have contemplated whether the IAB ought to be altered
dramatically or else eliminated.  I don't have an opinion about that
right now, but we might get another bit of evidence from following
Nico's suggestion.)

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 13:20:32 -0800

> I get the fear.  But I think the risks are manageable with a simple

The belief that any of this can be made simple increases my fear, rather
than reducing it.

The reality is that we -- as in, 'the world' -- understand these
dynamics poorly.  Theere a cliche among organizational change folk:
Every change carries unintended consequences, and they are usually bad.
 This does not mean we should make no changes; but it does mean we must
approach the design of changes with caution -- starting with some
modesty about expected benefits -- and make on-going evaluations, to
look for those consequences and consider tweaks.

> It's a compromise, of course. 

Forgive me, but it's much worse than that.

In the IETF today, what does it mean to be a generalist?  What are their
skills and how do we measure them reliability?  And do we have enough
such folk to fill the IESG pool on an on-going basis?

I think the practical answers to these questions are not at all
encouraging, so I'll offer a variant that is meant to carry some of the
spirit of Nico's suggestion, but is more pragmatic:

Make a list of the range of knowledge and skills we want on the IESG.
Some are low-level technical component skills, like ABNF and JSON.  Some
are intermediate-level, such as YANG and MIBs.  Some are higher-level
technical skills, such as system architectures, interaction analysis.
Some are organizational and communications, such as writing and management.

Consider an extensive list of such relevant skills and then decide what
amounts are needed for the IESG.  For some, like writing, we probably
need most/all of folk on the IESG to possess the skill.  For others,
like routing design/dynamics, we might need only two -- I'll suggest we
never need fewer than two, for any single skill.

Note that the nomcom process of filling the IAB has long had a version
of this approach, with a balancing effort across the full set of nominees.

Most of these skillsets are probably best dominated by directorates,
groups of 'doctors', or the like, with the IESG folk in the roles of
coordination and monitoring.

Having an IESG meeting take extensive time discussing a fine-grained
technical point might be entertaining for the principals engaging in the
debate, but it's impressively inefficient and mostly represents too
little, too late.  At best, having an IESG meeting take time to consider
a fine-grained issue means that the early-stage evaluations that should
have resolved this failed.  (At worst, it means that the ADs are
literally wasting everyone's time, while those ADs are taught why the wg
choice was valid/correct.)

Given the directorates, etc., what is the need for an AD to have these
skills?  Oversight, IMO.  It's difficult to assess a debate if one knows
nothing of the topic.  By the same token, being able to assess a debate
does not require being a world leader in the topic.

d/

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 16:35:42 -0500

> look for those consequences and consider tweaks.

I think that's right, and it's again a reason that I prefer Nico's
approach -- not because I think it will be simpler; but rather
because, since it is such a departure, nobody will be tempted to think
that it'll get everything right in one pass.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 17:13:01 -0600

On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 11:15:06AM -0500, Pete Resnick wrote:
> Do note the explanation for this in our original message, as I think
> you have an embedded assumption that's at least non-obvious:
> 
> To expand a bit: We do think having WGs in particular Areas is
> useful, and we think generally we're getting our assignment of WGs
> to particular Areas correct: At the scale of an Area, it is
> generally quite obvious and natural that the kind of work we want
> done in a WG falls to a particular IETF constituency, and those
> folks are normally in a particular Area.
> 
> However, we have not found that ADs are so specialized that there is
> a "correct" AD for every WG, or that the AD whose main area (or
> Area) of expertise is always the best person to manage any
> particular WG. [...]
> 
> rigid. It *should* be normal for us to assign specific WGs to the
> best AD for that WG, even if the best AD for the Area happens to be
> a different AD. That flexibility should let us redistribute the load
> as needed, and hopefully make it easier for the NomCom to fill
> slots.

This.

For me then this comes down to: once-in-a-while "restructurings" that
consist of one-but-more-likely-many WG/AD reassignments, versus more
frequent one-or-two WG/AD reassignments.

For me "flexibility" as to WG/AD assigments, among other things, means
that each such assignment can't be allowed to require IETF consensus
with 100+-post threads on [email-masked].  To me WG/AD assigments should
be a matter strictly for the IESG and WG chairs; WG participant and IETF
input should be welcomed, but their consensus should not be formally
required.

The alternatives are once-a-year restructurings yielding long
[email-masked] threads (OK), less frequent restructurings (not OK), or
death by a thousand 100-post threads.

I think[*] I much prefer frequent one-off WG/AD reassignments, _without_
the overhead of IETF consensus in each case.  Someone is bound to see a
conspiracy in that view, which is probably why this isn't on the table :(

Nico

[*] Eh, I can't be too certain about it; I've no idea how that might
    work out IRL.  Maybe we'll hate the result, but we can always go
    back to the alternatives later.

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 18:12:46 -0600

> The belief that any of this can be made simple increases my fear, rather

If we get WG/AD assignments wrong, or fill vancancies with people with
the wrong skills, then we can have several kind of sub-optimal outcomes:

 - Less review for WG documents, leading to lower quality outputs (in
   some cases harmful documents might get through).

   But this seems unlikely: we have so many opportunities for review
   already...  WG LC, IETF LC, AD shepherding, IESG review, reviews by
   the various directorates.

 - Unstated-but-very-real moving of review burdens onto the directorates
   and the larger IETF as the IESG drops the ball.

What mechanism do we have for addressing these outcomes _now_?

We get to chime in when the IESG makes a proposal like this one.  Else
we get to complain at the plenaries and on this list and hope the
complaints don't fall on deaf ears.  In particular we can't appeal
inaction, and appealing a set of individual bad outcomes is not likely a
useful mechanism for dealing with organizational problems.

Whereas a process that permits frequent WG/AD reassignments would allow
our complaints to lead to IESG action: because the action sought would
cost the IESG relatively little effort, we might actually get it.

> dynamics poorly.  [...]

We have trouble predicting results, and trouble understanding social
problems, but we know when we are having problems.  The IESG is saying
"we're having problems".  We could do nothing out of fear of unintended
consequences, but even inaction has unintended consequences.

> such folk to fill the IESG pool on an on-going basis?

That's a fair point, but if you look around you'll see that we have
generalists.  Cross-area reviews tend to force people out of their
comfort areas.

"Has demonstrated expertise in unrelated areas" is a predictor of
"ability to develop new expertise".  That seems like a meta directive to
give to the NOMCOM.

Incidentally, if you look around, there's a short-hand for this sort of
specializable-generalist: full stack engineer.  The market is clamoring
for them.  I'm not sure how many there are, nor how many can find
employment or funding that allows them to serve on the IESG.  But one
happy consequence of market demand will probably be increased supply.

> Some are organizational and communications, such as writing and management.

Absolutely.  This is a detail that goes fine with my proposal, but I'd
also go a bit more meta:

   Has demonstrated expertise in unrelated areas.

> does not require being a world leader in the topic.

My experience is that ADs bring a lot more to the table than merely
following a script, dotting i's, crossing t's, and lending authority to
directorate reviews.  I'd like this to continue to be the case.

I don't think ADs bring value because _areas_ bring value.

I think ADs bring value because they are a small but varied group of
experienced and accomplished engineers.  The first part (small group) is
a given, the second (varied) is up to the IESG and NOMCOM themselves,
and the third part is a happy accident (namely, that the NOMCOM has had
a decent supply of decent candidates with employer support).

"Areas" strike me as accidental, or at least incidental, not remotely
fundamental.  Perhaps that perception is quite wrong, you'd have to tell
me.  But if it's right, then why do we bother with "areas" when they
start to cause friction?  A: because generally a "restructuring" makes
the immediate problem go away, so areas survive as an organizing
principle.

Nico
--

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 02:35:35 -0600

It occurs to me that my proposal is rather selfish, actually: motivated by
difficulty for a relative outsider (I don't follow very many WGs)
in understanding the actual proposal.  I'd have read a fair bit of
datatracker records and mailing list archive content to begin to understand
some reassignment proposals, and/or talk to a number of people.  The flip
side is that infrequent mass reassignments must seem like a lot less work
to the IESG.  Each lone reassignment would have to be guaranteed to be real
cheap, or the concept won't fly.  But we are also not fond of light-weight
processes here.

Given this, I think I will now butt-out, even if the IESG and IETF end
up adopting something like my suggestion.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 18:09:19 -0500

>    (Nonetheless, I support the IESG choosing to experiment with three

I hadn't thought yet as to the term and rotation by which the 3 RTG ADs would
get re-evaluated.  RFC3777 (and bis) say that the terms shall be such that
"half the IESG" gets evaluated each year.
(If the writeup explained that, I missed it)

As such, it would likely be best if the new RTG AD was a either 1 year or 3
year term simply so that it's opposite the IETF Chair term.  However, any
additional flipping around due to the new area would change that anyway.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 14:40:12 +1300

> additional flipping around due to the new area would change that anyway.

Actually the text in 3777 is a bit more subtle:

"  3. One-half of each of the then current IESG and IAB positions is
      selected to be reviewed each year.

      The intent of this rule to ensure the review of approximately
      one-half of each of the IESG and IAB sitting members each year.
      It is recognized that circumstances may exist that will require
      the nominating committee to review more or less than one-half of
      the current positions, e.g., if the IESG or IAB have re-organized
      prior to this process and created new positions, if there are an
      odd number of current positions, or if a member unexpectedly
      resigns."

Since there are currently 15 IESG positions, we can't literally
review exactly half anyway (which is a bug in the current text,
and I haven't checked the bis text).

    Brian

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 08:43:55 -0000

Brian,

In what way is...
>       one-half of each of the IESG and IAB sitting members each year.
... a bug?

7 or 8 out of 15 clearly fits "approximately".
I'd say that 6 or 9 out of 15 is stretching "approximately" and is to be avoided where other circumstances allow, but it is not a disaster.

Adrian

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 13:29:38 +0200

> On Dec 30, 2014, at 1:09 AM, Michael Richardson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 

I think the most “spirit of the law” approach is not that “half the IESG” gets evaluated, but that the term be two years, so that an AD gets evaluated in “half the years”. 

If RTG has three ADs long-term, then there will be years with two of them getting evaluated.

Yoav

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 11:50:59 -0500

Yoav Nir <[email-masked]> wrote:
    >> As such, it would likely be best if the new RTG AD was a either 1 year
    >> or 3 year term simply so that it's opposite the IETF Chair term.
    >> However, any additional flipping around due to the new area would
    >> change that anyway.

    > I think the most “spirit of the law” approach is not that “half the
    > IESG” gets evaluated, but that the term be two years, so that an AD
    > gets evaluated in “half the years”.

    > If RTG has three ADs long-term, then there will be years with two of

My personal preference, btw, is to put someone in place for 3 years.

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 12:32:41 -0500

> My personal preference, btw, is to put someone in place for 3 years.

   That is a reasonable proposal; but I don't think we can get there
this year...

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 08:25:14 +1300

>>       one-half of each of the IESG and IAB sitting members each year.

The bug is that the first sentence of the rule doesn't say "approximately"
or "on average". Nomcoms are not stupid and have never to my knowledge
attempted to review 7.5 positions, but the wording isn't quite right.

I will shut up, though, because 3777bis has already fixed this.

   Brian

> .