Subject: A few individual comments based on tonight's discussions

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 23:16:29 -0400

Hi, all:

Rich's point about the lack of additional voices from the dais
was well-taken, and given that it's clear that one source of
frustration among IETFers is a lack of information, I thought
it might (or possibly not, but it's worth a try) be helpful to
provide some additional perspective from the front of the room.
I also want to be clear that I'm speaking only for myself, and
while I've discussed a few of these things with other IAB members
I haven't discussed all of them.  Of the issues I have raised
there really isn't anything resembling consensus - most
of this may, in fact, be very much a minority viewpoint.  But, I
do think we need to improve our transparency where we can, and I
hope this helps provide an additional view of where we are and
how we got here.

First, for those of us not on the RSOC, what transpires between
the RSOC and the RSE is completely opaque.  To me, it resembles
a black box, and it's not the case that we have some inside
information that we're hiding from you.  Most of us just don't
know much.  I think that this is a very good thing -
the RSOC members have domain expertise and a specific interest
in working with the RSE and RPC to get our documents published.
I suspect that most of us would agree that we don't want the IAB
micromanaging the RSOC or the RSE.  Personally, I do trust the RSOC
and feel that what's gone wrong here is the result of structural
problems, a terrible confluence of events, and possibly some
misjudgments (again, I have no information about this, I'm just guessing
based on pretty much the same information you all have).

However, this lack of information has led to a situation in which the
IAB is *accountable* for RFC publication but not *responsible*, in the
sense that we aren't actually in a position to know how things are
going or influence much, but the buck still stops with us.  I think this
is a structural problem, because there aren't really mechanisms
there that allow us to respond to problems as they develop (or even
be aware of them).  I hope this isn't seen as an argument for the IAB to
be involved in (micro)managing the RFC publication process, because it's
not, it's just an observation about something I think can and should be
fixed through structural changes.

It's also the case that in general we usually try to figure out what's
inside black boxes by shaking them, tilting them, and basically trying
to affect the inside of the box in ways that force it to reveal
something about its contents.  I've personally been reluctant to try to
figure out what's inside this black box because I've been worried that
the process of working through it might lead to bruising or other
damage, which I did not want to cause to happen.  This may have looked
like disengagement or lack of concern, and for that I apologize, both to
the community and specifically to Heather.

On the rfc++ BOF, the IAB came out of it completely abashed.  We
knew we'd messed up, we put out a statement explaining where we thought
we'd made mistakes, left the ball in Heather's court, and basically
never talked of it again.  I think this is another mistake we made -
we should have followed up personally with Heather.  I did not, for
which I also apologize.

I hope that people feel free to approach me and other IAB members for
discussions about this.  If I can't tell you something I'll say so.
We are here in service to the community, and that means listening and
dialogue.  Again, this is just one person's view and I am quite sure
that there are some things I've gotten wrong.  I am optimistic about
finding a way forward towards identifying and resolving these issues
though, as discussion continues, both within the IAB and with the
community.

Speaking only for myself,

Melinda

-- 
Software longa, hardware brevis

PGP key fingerprint  4F68 2D93 2A17 96F8 20F2
                     34C0 DFB8 9172 9A76 DB8F

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 03:26:21 +0000

>    Rich's point about the lack of additional voices from the dais
    was well-taken

Ted's explanation makes sense, but it should have been clearly conveyed at the start of the session.  If it was, and I missed it, I apologize for raising the issue.

I appreciate that you wrote your view, thanks for doing so.

---

From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 00:00:02 -0400

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 11:16:29PM -0400, Melinda Shore wrote:
> the RSOC and the RSE is completely opaque....
>
> IAB is *accountable* for RFC publication but not *responsible*,

Melinda,

Thanks for pointing this out.  I had noticed that there was someone
from the RSOC which said on one of the interminably long e-mail
threads, hey it's not *our* fault, we just make recommendations, it's
the IAB which acts on them.  (And the IAB hadn't even met yet, so
nothing was a done deal, so we're doubly not to blame for what
happened.)

And then there was an e-mail from someone on the IAB saying, "hey we
don't micro-manage the RSOC, we give them the freedom to do their
thing" --- with the net result that it appeared that no one thought
they owned the responsibility.

I agree with you that this does appear to be a structural problem, and
hopefully it shouldn't be too hard to address it now that it's been
exposed.

						- Ted

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 23:19:35 +1200

On 25-Jul-19 16:00, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> Thanks for pointing this out.  

Yes, and as I implied somewhere in one of the threads, we did miss this
aspect of the "RFC Editor model" during its development. (I said it another
way: that the IAB isn't actually chartered to have that accountability
and responsibility, but only to approve RFC Editor appointment and policy.)

> I had noticed that there was someone

If we want the 50-year-old RFC Series to continue as an institution,
we do need to address this, but I'm not so sure it's as easy as you
suggest. I don't want to say more before I've caught up on the discussion,
since I had to leave the plenary early for a pre-arranged meeting.

    Brian

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 04:36:55 -0700

> Rich's point about the lack of additional voices from the dais

Thanks for starting this Melinda.  I decided last night to write a note
from my (limited) perspective, but opted to head for bed instead and
write in the morning when I was thinking and writing more clearly.
So I'll steal your subject line instead.

In an odd place of "IAB hat on, but not speaking as an individual and
not for the IAB":

For me, my primary purpose this week is to listen.  I'm a long time
IETFer but new to the IAB, new to the situation and have been spinning
as quickly as possible in this particular situation by reading, watching
(the IETF++ bof, which I originally missed) and listening to opinions.
My plan for the plenary last night was to collect and absorb more
information, take a few notes on my phone and to begin forming a path
toward consensus on where to go from here.  I was incredibly frustrated
to hear that the most important night we needed an unlimited time-length
plenary with community dialog was one night where we didn't have the
option to do so, so I personally felt it most important to listen to
comments and suggestions coming froward.  I'd like to thank everyone for
the comments they brought last night; the night was incredibly
productive for me and some of my phone-jotted notes are likely going to
be the foundation of my opinions going forward.  Likewise, I've
appreciated all of the hallway conversations I've had this week (which
started in airport hallways), and hope to have more while the week wraps
up.  Please do come talk to me if you have suggestions for future
directions of the RSE structure that you'd like me to consider.  I'm a
firm believer in consensus as a process, and successful consensus
requires hearing from as many voices as possible in order to determine a
best path forward.

-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI

---

From: "Aaron Falk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 10:02:03 -0400

On 24 Jul 2019, at 23:16, Melinda Shore wrote:

> I

Thanks for your comments, Melinda.  I find this kind of introspection 
helpful and timely as we consider how to move forward.

--aaron

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 11:18:59 -0400

I didn’t want to write a lengthy mail but wanted to say that the words from Wes and Melinda describe pretty well my view as well. I did want to say in addition that from my perspective improving communications needs to be in focus going forward, in addition to looking if our structures are right. And I personally kick myself for not seeing breakage at a time when better communications could have helped. Room for a lesson there, for this and other situations. 

And thanks also for all the feedback and well thought out discussion on this topic, both yesterday and on list.

Jari

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 16:20:59 +0100

Hiya,

On 25/07/2019 16:18, Jari Arkko wrote:
> I didnâ€™t want to write a lengthy mail but wanted to say that the
> words from Wes and Melinda describe pretty well my view as well. I
> did want to say in addition that from my perspective improving
> communications needs to be in focus going forward, in addition to
> looking if our structures are right. And I personally kick myself for
> not seeing breakage at a time when better communications could have
> helped. Room for a lesson there, for this and other situations.

Yep same applies to me too.

S.

> 
> And thanks also for all the feedback and well thought out discussion
> on this topic, both yesterday and on list.
> 
> Jari
> 
>

---

From: "Martin Thomson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 14:53:51 -0400

> Speaking only for myself,

Speaking also for myself, I'd like to thank Melinda.  This email matches my own perspective so closely that I can only really offer a "+1".

---

From: "Brian Trammell (IETF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 15:14:04 -0400

Greetings, all,

I will add my voice to the chorus of "+1, Melinda", and thank you very much for putting it more eloquently than I ever could on a Thursday.

Cheers,

Brian

> On 24 Jul 2019, at 23:16, Melinda Shore <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi, all:
>

---

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 17:21:27 -0400

Melinda,

Like others, I very much appreciate your (and other IAB folks) thoughts 
on this. It's very helpful. A larger question about the below, which Ted 
Tso's message alluded to:

On 24 Jul 2019, at 23:16, Melinda Shore wrote:

> for those of us not on the RSOC, what transpires between
> IAB is *accountable* for RFC publication but not *responsible*

It seems to me there's a pretty wide chasm between "completely opaque" 
and "micromanaging", so I'm curious about your thought that the complete 
opacity "is a very good thing". In particular, if the IAB is accountable 
(and I believe it is and should be), it's got to have at least some 
knowledge of what's going on at a high level. That to me means that the 
IAB not only reviews the minutes of RSOC meetings like the rest of us 
do, but also gets regular briefings from the RSOC so there can be some 
Q&A about minutes.

This isn't about micromanaging: I've served on a couple of non-profit 
boards, and managing staff was definitely delegated to the Executive 
Director and financial oversight was delegated to the board Finance 
Committee. And it wasn't the expectation that the ED reported to us 
about how a particular client is served, or that the Finance Committee 
reported to us about expenditures on pencils. However, we did hear from 
the ED about the strategy of serving particular client communities, and 
from the Finance Committee about the long term financial outlook. We had 
the opportunity to ask questions, and sometimes we'd ask about more 
specific things just to get an idea that the implementation of board 
strategies and initiatives were resulting in the desired results. That 
to me isn't micromanaging; the board was accountable, so we made 
ourselves aware of what was going on, though only in very broad 
brushstrokes. However, it also wasn't a completely opaque black box.

Maybe a similar level of insight into the workings of the RSOC and the 
RSE wouldn't have helped avert the current outcome; maybe it would have 
helped. Hindsight and all. But I'm not clear: Why is having a completely 
black box a good thing?

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick http://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 04:47:20 -0700

Hi Jari, Wes,

There was the following in this thread:

   "It's also the case that in general we usually try to figure out what's
    inside black boxes by shaking them, tilting them, and basically trying
    to affect the inside of the box in ways that force it to reveal
    something about its contents.  I've personally been reluctant to try to
    figure out what's inside this black box because I've been worried that
    the process of working through it might lead to bruising or other
    damage, which I did not want to cause to happen.  This may have looked
    like disengagement or lack of concern, and for that I apologize, both to"

A committee turns into a disengaged committee when it adopts the 
above approach.  The IAB is not one person.  From what I read, 
several IAB members viewed the RFC Editor as a function which they 
did not have to understand.

It is unlikely that the problem happened overnight.  Were you 
provided with the right information?  I doubt it as the consensus of 
the IAB was to ignore what was going on.  The consequence is that the 
IAB would not be able to identify an undesirable future outcome.

I'll use the word "you" in general. In my opinion, you are expected 
to have access to more information as you are on the inside.  If you 
are unduly concerned about asking questions which might lead to 
bruising, it could be that you are more interested in being seated on 
the platform in front of the room instead of interacting at peer level.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 16:56:32 +0100

Hiya,

On 27/07/2019 12:47, S Moonesamy wrote:
> 
> It is unlikely that the problem happened overnight.  

Yep.

> Were you provided
> with the right information?  

AFAIK no information was hidden by RSOC. But IMO we (IAB at least,
maybe RSOC members too not sure), failed to ask the right questions,
e.g. as to whether things were generally going well or not.

> I doubt it as the consensus of the IAB was
> to ignore what was going on. 

That is incorrect. There was no such consensus, even though I
and others did individually fail to dig into things sufficiently.
(Note though that by "dig in" I don't mean that the IAB ought
have micromanaged RSOC nor the RSE which is what I think Melinda
was saying also.)

> The consequence is that the IAB would not
> be able to identify an undesirable future outcome.

Incorrect again I think. That's an over-general conclusion
and based on a false premise in any case.

> I'll use the word "you" in general. In my opinion, you are expected to
> have access to more information as you are on the inside.  If you are
> unduly concerned about asking questions which might lead to bruising, it
> could be that you are more interested in being seated on the platform in
> front of the room instead of interacting at peer level.

I can see how someone might have that perception. Without commenting
on any specific current or former IAB members, I think it is fair to
say that over the years different members of the IAB have invested
different levels of energy in carrying out the role. I'm not sure how
one avoids that if you think it a problem, and neither am I sure how
big a problem it is - an IAB member with low activity levels could
be just the right person to provide input in some specific case. (And
of course, if someone were to consider an active IAB mostly as a
potential menace that person might even prefer that the IAB sit there
on stage glorying in their pointlessness:-)

Cheers,
S.

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 12:41:13 -0700

Hi Stephen,
>e.g. as to whether things were generally going well or not.

Yes.

>That is incorrect. There was no such consensus, even though I

Ok.

>have micromanaged RSOC nor the RSE which is what I think Melinda

The ideal approach is not to "dig in" as you would be receiving 
quality and timely information.  It is useful to keep in mind that 
ideal approach in not necessarily good enough to do the job it was 
designed to do.

>and based on a false premise in any case.

Ok.

>one avoids that if you think it a problem, and neither am I sure how

It is not a problem which affects me.

>on stage glorying in their pointlessness:-)

It can be like that on a committee.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: "Martin Thomson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 11:27:02 +1000

> do, but also gets regular briefings from the RSOC so there can be some 

The idea, at least as far I understand it, was that the two IAB members on the RSOC were entrusted with ensuring that information was relayed to the IAB as a whole. So, while the analogy is neat, it's not really a black box.  Information was flowing, but it might have been that there was some problem with getting the right level of information.

---

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 14:43:05 -0500

On 28 Jul 2019, at 20:27, Martin Thomson wrote:

> The idea, at least as far I understand it, was that the two IAB 
> members on the RSOC were entrusted with ensuring that information was 
> relayed to the IAB as a whole. So, while the analogy is neat, it's not 
> really a black box.  Information was flowing, but it might have been 
> that there was some problem with getting the right level of 
> information.

What you say is more encouraging than how Melinda had framed it; not 
ideal, in that perhaps the right info was not coming through, but still 
better than "completely opaque". That said, I've heard intimations 
offline that some folks (on the IAB and on the RSOC) thought that the 
IAB was meant to purposely treat the RSOC as a black box. If your view 
is the held view across the IAB and the RSOC, that's good, and perhaps 
just information flow needs to be adjusted. If not, perhaps others might 
say why they feel differently.

pr

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 15:53:28 -0400

On 7/29/2019 3:43 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
>> relayed to the IAB as a whole. So, while the analogy is neat, it's 
>> not really a black box.  Information was flowing, but it might have 
>> been that there was some problem with getting the right level of 
>> information.
>
> ideal, in that perhaps the right info was not coming through, but 
> still better than "completely opaque". That said, I've heard 
> intimations offline that some folks (on the IAB and on the RSOC) 
> thought that the IAB was meant to purposely treat the RSOC as a black 
> box. If your view is the held view across the IAB and the RSOC, that's 
> good, and perhaps just information flow needs to be adjusted. If not, 
> perhaps others might say why they feel differently.

This seems to be at odds with what Ted said:

> As I noted above, the RSOC generally operates independently of the 
> IAB.  The current documents call out specific times when the IAB must 
> approve the actions of the RSOC, particularly this:
>
> For all decisions that affect the RSE individually (e.g., hiring and
> firing), the RSOC prepares recommendations for the IAB, but the final
> decision is the responsibility of the IAB.  For instance the RSOC
> would do the following:
>
>     o  perform annual reviews of the RSE and report the result of these
>        reviews to the IAB.
>
>     o  manage RSE candidate selection and advise the IAB on candidate
>        appointment (in other words, select the RSE subject to IAB
>        approval).
>
> The IAB treats these approvals as it does confirmations of the IESG 
> slate for NomCom appointments.  We don't re-run the process, we 
> confirm that the process ran as described.

The above coupled with the "personnel decisions are executive session 
matters and are not to be shared" comments from Ted leads back to the 
black box model.  (e.g. not sure how you can confirm the process if you 
don't have the details on what the actual discussion was).

At this point,  I'm still looking to understand "why" it happened, and 
"who" caused it to happen.

Later, Mike

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 19:41:16 -0400

I'm typing on my phone, so apologies for the formatting, typos, etc.

Anyway, no, I really know very little about what's going on between the
RSOC and the RSE that other people don't.  There are regular reports but
they're fairly cut-and-dried.  As I said, I think there are structural
problems here that can and should be fixed.  I don't think it's in
anybody's interest to have the IAB micromanaging either the RSOC or the RSE
and I think it's absolutely clear that it might be a good thing to
completely restructure it with an eye towards clearer lines of
responsibility and communication.

Is the current situation okay?  Obviously not.  Is anybody claiming it is?
I don't think so.  But, there's obviously a ton of misinformation out there
about nearly all of it and it's engendered considerable anger that isn't
necessarily productive or correctly focused.

Melinda