Subject: Trusting the IESG to manage the reform process (was: Re: Doing t he Right Things?)

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 20:30:49 -0700

John Klensen writes:

but that no one on the IESG has been willing to speak up in public and say
"I see a problem here, but it is all those other folks, not me", then there
is something hopelessly broken about the nomcom model, probably to the point
that we need to discard it and start over. 

I have been saying for some time that the NOMCON model is broken. Of course
I am not on the IESG and the procedures of the NOMCON will make sure that
people like myself are never selected, which is of course the point.

I have been reading "The Tipping Point", ok so pop-psychology but one point
that is made rings very true, the rule of 150. Basically there is a limit to
the size organizations can grow without formal structure which seems to be
stuck at about 150. That is why every army from the Roman legions onwards
has been organized into companies of about 100-200 men.

That would explain the problem that the IETF has been facing trying to keep
the creative anarchy model going. It simply does not scale beyond a certain
size. The parts of the IETF that have been working have been working because
they have worked in isolation. The security area for example consists of
roughly 100 active participants.

It would also explain the generation gap problem. The simple fact is that no
matter what anyone under 40 does in the IETF they are never going to get
accepted into the inner circle.

I want a system with accountability. NOMCON is the type of scheme a bunch of
academics cook up to make sure they keep power in their own hands.

Democracy is working just fine in OASIS. We elect the WG chairs, it is
amazing the difference that simple change alone makes. The IETF does not
even believe in announcing upcomming vacancies. The DNSEXT chair just
changed with no prior advertisement of a vacancy for the position - unless
of course you are a member of the inner circle.

IETF processes are not open and not inclusive, the guff about them being so
is simply propaganda to fool the proletariat.

The generation gap is significant for many reasons, not least the issue of
what happens when the establishement chooses to retire. There are some
courtiers waiting in the wings for their moment of glory but I doubt that
they will carry much influence outside the IETF.

The engineering reason the generation gap is significant is that there is a
dramatic difference of perspective between people who grew up with the
machine and people who watched it being invented. To me the computer is
simply another utility, no more deserving of wonder than electricity, gas or
running water. It is not enough that something function, it has to function
seamlessly. Instead the establishment tolerates Rube Goldberg contraptions
that run with the grace and elegance of a pre WWI vintage motor car.

The IETF is still attracting younger engineers, but they are by and large
the sort who are interested in maintaining vintage communication protocols
rather than designing better ones.

		Phill

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:53:39 -0700

>accepted into the inner circle.

This means that a good portion of the current IESG and IAB are not in the
inner circle.  It certainly may be true that some of the younger folk are
not part of the same affinity groups as some of the more experienced,
but the mesh does include lots of folks under 40.

The IETF *does* have a problem with integrating the efforts of new folks into
the existing mesh of affinity groups.  I personally don't believe 
that age is the
critical factor, but that other barriers (lack of shared experience, etc.) make
age look more salient than it is.

In draft-hardie-12-2-1-00.txt, I put my own take on this problem this way:

     The author believes that the IETF has traditionally been
     integrated in two different ways, one formal and one informal.
     The formal integration relates to the steps of the standards
     process and the precursor steps of working group formation and
     chartering.  The informal integration is an overlapping set of
     personal relationships that allows participants to identify
     skills, perspectives, or energy needed to complete the efforts
     identified in the formal processes.  During a period of rapid
     growth and a follow-on period of contraction, the second system has
     been strained to the point of failure.  Though the IETF retains a
     large pool of skilled professionals with energy and needed
     perspectives, the overlap in personal networks is now not
     sufficient to associate those with the efforts the IETF has taken
     on.  This has led to delay, lowered quality, and frustration, both
     among those whose skills and perspectives are not appropriately
     connected to salient efforts and among those whose efforts have
     stalled for lack of energy or early input by those with relevant
     expertise.

The solution-space aspect of that was:

     One path forward for the IETF is to retain much or all of its
     current formal process, but take the traditionally informal lines
     of integration and to increase its efforts to create and support
     them.  It may also have to shift some of those lines of
     integration from the informal to the formal.  The SIR proposal,
     and especially its color-coded variant (SIRS), provides one
     example of how the IETF might create a formal mechanism
     (opportunity for early review by those outside an area) to replace
     the informal mechanism of passing work back and forth among one's
     colleagues.

     Beyond that are a host of possible mechanisms.  Having an
     identifiable group of committed participants may create an esprit
     de corps among those actively participating in a particular
     working group that will carry on beyond the group's tasks.
     Initial training sessions can create lines of contact both among a
     cohort trained together and between those trained and the
     trainers.  That can be extended by fostering round table
     discussions among participants from different groups, document
     authors, and chairs.  Cross-area and cross-working group
     integration can be improved by setting up liaison roles.
     Mentoring programs and peer review systems can be used to create
     new lines of communication.  The connection provided by
     directorates can also be extended, both by having open-membership
     directorates for some specific topics and by increasing the amount
     of inter and intra-group communication expected.

     None of the changes described above is a magic bullet, and none,
     at first glance, creates much structural change in the IETF.  Each
     mechanism is, after all, an elaboration of something we already
     do.  It is, instead, a cultural change that suggests the real
     strength of the IETF is that it brings together folks from
     substantially different backgrounds who still share a common goal.
     More importantly, it suggests that to retain that strength the
     IETF needs to foster mechanisms that brings those folks together
     early and often.  It also presumes that with renewed strength in
     this core area that the quality problems, delay, and frustration
     can be addressed within the framework already established.

(By the way, I really wish I had said that they will not magically go away
and had reinforced the idea that it simply gives the core strength
enough to tackle the problems in the existing framework.  Unfortunately,
I was close enough to the -00 deadline that reissuing a 01 is an
unfair burden)

     There is a long-held belief by some that the real work of any
     organization gets done in hallways.  For the IETF, the right
     response to that may be to make sure that the networks of folks in
     those hallways is vibrant, active, and just as open to new
     membership and participation as its formal processes have always
     been.  That may mean moving some of those meetings out of the
     hallway and into meeting rooms and mailing lists, but the
     trade-off might be worth it.

There is a real, fundamental question raised by organizational work
(the Tipping Point and its more scholarly colleagues)--whether any
effort that relies on building networks of this type (formal or informal)
can grow past a certain point.  I believe it can if it relies on overlapping
networks rather than networks with a single focus and if it blends some
formalism with the informal networks.  But, clearly, there are other ways
forward; they may be better. This is simply my view.
				Ted Hardie

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:39:58 -0700

Please note that I've changed the Subject line, to purse the cited
topic. This note could easily be construed as making statements about a
particular contributor. Please avoid the inclination to interpret it
that way. I am citing that posting in order to demonstrate some choices
in how to evaluate an issue with making working group progress.

>>accepted into the inner circle.
hqc> This means that a good portion of the current IESG and IAB are not in the
hqc> inner circle.  It certainly may be true that some of the younger folk are
hqc> not part of the same affinity groups as some of the more experienced,
hqc> but the mesh does include lots of folks under 40.

This sub-thread on "Trusting" has a focus on criticizing individuals and
re-visiting a number of topics that have been discussed at length.

Let's ask whether there is anything constructive that is likely to
come out of this sub-thread?  My own guess is that there is not.

How should we evaluate this sub-thread? What should a diligent
discussion participant do, in response to such a posting? What formal
mechanisms can work to reduce such postings, in favor of postings that
are more likely to be productive?

One possibility is to attack the originator of the thread as a
troublemaker and seek formal mechanisms for restricting their behaviors.
There are several dangerous problems with that approach. First is that
it keeps things personal, which is not what we are here to do, and which
is certain to keep things uproductive -- it always does. Second is that
the criteria for acceptable and unacceptable behavior cannot be subtle;
they need to be as objective as we can make them. This necessitates
their coming into effect only in the most extreme cases. Third is that
the current formal mechanisms are expensive and distracting. Using them
further delays making forward progress.

So, only extremely objectionable behaviors can reasonably be restricted,
formally. Unfortunately, that makes the formal mechanism applicable a
long time after productive exchanges have become impractical.

I believe that a major strength among IETF participants is also a major
weakness, namely the desire to press for mutual understanding -- or, at
least, convincing that one's own view is correct.  This means that we
tend to respond more often than we need to.  (Alas, I'm speaking from
too much expertise in committing this sin.)

If we view this kind of sub-thread as one example of going down an
unproductive path, then existing mechanisms are probably sufficient --
if we become more diligent at using them.

The two existing mechanisms that are most appropriate are a) the rest of
us need to simply ignore the posting; don't take the bait, and b) wg
chair management of the discussion can be invoked, in the same way as
Melinda (correctly) just pointed out that a separate thread needed to
be pursued elsewhere.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 11:09:25 -0700

Hi Dave,
	I've changed the subject line again, because
my comments weren't on the "trouble maker" point;
you may be right that they weren't on the point of trusting
the IESG to manage reform (though there is an odd resonance).
	Aside from this, I think you missed my point.  I
responded to Phillip Hallam-Baker's discussion of age
as a criterion for membership in "the inner circle" in order
to get back to the idea of "affinity groups" (a.k.a trust networks,
personal relationship networks, etc.) and the mesh
of such groupings in the IETF.  This was not a criticism of
Phillip; indeed, I agree that there is a very serious problem
here in integrating folks with energy and expertise into
the IETF.  I believe, however, you need to look past a
simple distinction based on age to get at how that integration
succeeds or fails.  To me, this is a critical part of getting
the problem statement here right. I also believe that the point on the
size of organizations integrated with personal networks
belongs here, and I posted the solutions space aspect of
the draft explicitly to raise that point---that the question
of the maximum size which can be integrated with a
specific mechanism may be a problem in its own right.
	I hope that clarifies things,
				Ted Hardie

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:33:18 -0400

>  The simple fact is that no
> matter what anyone under 40 does in the IETF they are never going to
> get accepted into the inner circle.

I was on IESG for four entire years before I turned 40.   Before that I
was a working group chair, and author of several RFCs.  This wasn't very
long ago.

Keith

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 19:00:52 -0400

On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 09:53:39AM -0700, [email-masked] allegedly
wrote:
> effort that relies on building networks of this type (formal or
> informal) can grow past a certain point.  I believe it can if it
> relies on overlapping networks rather than networks with a single
> focus and if it blends some formalism with the informal networks.
> But, clearly, there are other ways forward; they may be better. This
> is simply my view.

Also stability of the group is a factor.  The less churn there is the
larger it can grow and function.  (As in our case) as a group gets
larger and more fragile the stable relationships become more pivotal.

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 17:50:15 -0400

Hi Phillip,

>accepted into the inner circle.

-AND-

>That type of behavior is not open and it is not inclusive. It is an old boys
>network (and yes they almost always are boys).

I don't know what IETF you are working in, but...

I am not (for another two weeks) over 40, nor am I a "boy", but
I do think that I have been accepted into the "inner circle" of
the IETF -- whatever that means.

I did find it difficult to get established in the IETF as a newbie,
but that difficulty was not (IMO) related in any way to my age
or gender.

Margaret

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:04:43 +0300 (EEST)

> was a working group chair, and author of several RFCs.  This wasn't very

I must concur that I don't see how age affects anything, except perhaps
your own self (ie. some might be hesitant to make contributions, etc.  
because they think they would be shunned because of their age, their
inexperience in how IETF works, etc.etc.).

I have been WG chair and a couple of directorates before I turned 25.

I haven't felt excluded at all, the least of all based on age.

Maybe I could put that as a bit tongue-in-cheek:

"Childs can be graybeards while graybeards can also be childs."

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings