Minutes for IESG at IETF-89
minutes-89-iesg-opsplenary-1

IETF 89 Plenary Minutes
London, England, UK
Wednesday, 4 March 2014

Minutes by Maddy Conner, IETF Secretariat

-----

Administrative and Management Plenary

   	1. Welcome
   	2. Host Presentation
   	3. Reporting
      - IETF Chair
      - IAOC Chair and IAD
      - IETF Trust Chair
      - NomCom Chair
   	4. Recognition
	5. Introducing the new ISOC CEO
   	6. Postel Award Announcement
   	7. Thanking outgoing IESG and IAOC Members
  	8. IAOC Open Mic
  	9. IESG Open Mic

-----

1. Welcome

Jari Arkko opened the administrative plenary session.


2. Host Presentation

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/89/slides/slides-89-
iesg-opsplenary-6.pdf

Fadi Chehade from ICANN gave the host presentation.

Jari presented a plaque to the host: Fadi Chehade from
ICANN.


3. Reporting

3.1. Reporting - IETF Chair (Jari Arkko)

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/89/slides/slides-89-
iesg-opsplenary-6.pdf

Linda Klieforth to remain IETF Ombudsperson.

IETF Oscar given to Alexa Morris of the IETF
Secretariat team for their video produced for IETF 89.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXFpog3B8hY

3.2. Reporting - IAOC Chair (Chris Griffiths) and IAD
(Ray Pelletier)

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/89/slides/slides-89-
iesg-opsplenary-5.pdf

3.3. Reporting - IETF Trust Chair (Ole Jacobsen)

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/89/slides/slides-89-
iesg-opsplenary-3.pdf

3.4. Reporting - NomCom Chair (Allison Mankin)

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/89/slides/slides-89-
iesg-opsplenary-1.pdf


4. Recognition

Goodbye and thank you to Lynn St. Amour. Jari Arkko,
Russ Housley, Brian Carpenter, and Fred Baker gave
recognition for her service. Lynn gave a short speech
and thank-you to the IETF. There was a photo slide show
and champagne toast in her honor. Lynn was also awarded
a plaque.


5. Introducing the new ISOC CEO

Jari Arkko introduced the new ISOC CEO, Kathy Brown.

Presentation and introduction by Kathy Brown.


6. Postel Award Announcement

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/89/slides/slides-89-
iesg-opsplenary-2.pdf

Kathy Brown announced the opening for nominations for
this year's Jonathan B. Postel service award.


7. Thanking outgoing IESG and IAOC Members

All outgoing members were recognized and received a
plaque.


8. IAOC Open Mic

Introductions: Ole Jacobsen, Bob Hinden, Kathy Brown,
Russ Housley, Jari Arkko, Chris Griffiths, Ray
Pelletier, Scott Bradner, Tobias Gondrom, Randy Bush

Chris Griffiths agreed to serve as IAOC Chair for
another year this morning.

Derek Atkins requested a status update about the
potential South America meeting.

Ray Pelletier answered that they are learning how
difficult it is to come to a contractual agreement with
areas the IETF is not familiar with, similar to Asia.
He explained that with Japan IETF canÕt go to a
contract until about a year right before the event. In
Buenos Aires theyÕve been trying to negotiate a
contract but there are political-economic rationales
for people and currencies that have made it difficult
for people to want to commit to pricing and things.
ItÕs been difficult for them. TheyÕre committed to
doing a deal in Buenos Aires but itÕs going to take a
little longer and be closer to the event before final.

Russ reminded Ray that at the IAOC breakfast this
morning they re-affirmed their commitment to going, so
theyÕre Ògoing to figure this one out.Ó

Dave Crocker expressed his concerns that there is such
a large percentage of ex-officio members that are not
candidates to be IAOC chairs and that the only way to
change that is to increase the pool. He wanted to know
if there has been any discussion about that.

Ray Pelletier responded that with regards to the trust
itself, RFC 4071 governs the people who are eligible to
serve as chairs for the IAOC but that the trust is
governed by the founding documents of the trust
agreement. The trust agreement does not have language
about who can serve as chair, but the trustees have
adopted administrative procedures saying that only the
appointed members to the IAOC can become the chair of
the trust. The appointments are by the IESG, the
NomCom, by the IAB. There has been an effort to
maintain the apparents in the reality in a separation
from ISOC. This is an IETF trust and it was very much a
concern in the first place when it was founded that
ISOC as a founder donated its assets (being the RFCs)
to the trust, and those are the biggest parts of the
assets we hold. We wanted to maintain that separation.
He left room for other people to talk about it.

They decide not to continue the legal debate about the
language.

Keith Drage asked if there is a cost associated with
the new ombudsperson being appointed.

Jari Arkko stated that there is a cost as it is being
provided by ISOC for the time being but there is not
currently a cost visible to the IETF; though this could
change in the future. The discussion should continue on
the IETF list about whether this should change in the
future and if the person should be a professional in
the field.

Russ Housley added that it is nice to have someone who
has a lot of experience dealing with these sorts of
situations now and he values it and hopes we can find a
way to move to an arrangement where we also have
someone with the appropriate training.

Phillip Matthews commented that he really appreciates
the movement to publish the meeting arrangements in
advance of the meeting and wants to know how far in
advance IETF leadership will continue to publish that
information.

Ray Pelletier noted that this is something they
recently started and said Dave Crocker was instrumental
in bringing that conversation up as part of the
meetings committee. When they announce a new venue, Ray
always announces the next three, which will continue.
He will continue to publish at least the next year and
is willing to announce the next two or so years if that
will be helpful.

Phillip Matthews said he does appreciate it and would
like it to continue and as much as possible.

Scott Bradner reemphasized that it is hard to announce
meeting locations without a contract so they will not
post the information until there is a contract.

Ray joked that Phillip can book his vacation for July
2016 at the Intercontinental in Berlin.

Phillip said that far in advance is not necessary but
at least 9 months in advance.

Michael Richardson, as a NomCom voting member, talked
about a conversation the NomCom had a couple of weeks
ago about remote participation and NomCom eligibility
and he asked if someone could serve as a voting member
of the NomCom and participate remotely. They concluded
that you probably could not and you would need to
attend the November meeting at the very least.

Scott Bradner disagreed saying that according to RFC
3777 Ð itÕs 3 out of the last 5 meetings.

Michael clarified that he was referring to the
eligibility to serve and the possibility to be
interviewed.

Scott said there is no rule on that.

Michael understood that there is no rule and he was not
looking for a rule but suggested that since the
incoming NomCom would be doing their interviews in
Honolulu, some of the people they want to talk to might
not be there but could attend remotely for that
meeting.

Russ Housley jokingly asked if they were looking for a
tiki hut on the beach or what.

Michael joked no but maybe one of the robot remote
participants inside the tiki hut would work. Then he
actually suggested that in the planning of the
meetings, if there would be a meeting that would be in
a slightly challenging location to get to, the November
meeting would not be the meeting to experiment with
because of the NomCom criteria. It is nice to have as
many people as possible to get to the meeting Ð both
people who are wanting to get onto the NomCom and
people who might want to give feedback on a person. He
understood why we went to Orlando last year, but wanted
to keep in mind that not all locations are created
equal.

Randy Bush spoke about remote participation, as he is
often remote and puts a lot of effort into this, and he
said the basic problem we have today is that the
technology sucks. He provided a call to action for the
IETF participants about this problem.

Louis Berger followed up on what Michael said about
remote participation and location. He said that certain
locations do make it harder for some people to travel.
He said going somewhere like Hawaii is not necessarily
the best place to go for high attendance.

Bob Hinden reported that he expects a large turn out
for Honolulu. He said that if you look at regional
attendance stats when you have a meeting in one region
the highest attended people are the people from that
region and that we shouldnÕt try to have the November
meeting always in the same region because we want the
nomination process to be diverse as well. We shouldnÕt
have the NomCom selection be the deciding factor in
where we have the meeting.

Louis Berger agreed that rotating around based on time
of year is a good idea. The point he was making was
that some locations make it so that the regular
attendees may have more trouble getting funding or
approval from their management for working meetings and
thatÕs really what the IETF is supposed to be doing. He
is all for bringing new people and widening the base to
bring more people, but he thinks the meetings committee
to be sensitive in choosing locations that the regular
attendees can travel to. There are many people he
talked to earlier in the week that didnÕt think they
would be in Hawaii because they were having trouble
getting approval from their management.

Russ Housley stated that they talked to a lot of people
about the Hawaii meeting, in particular the IESG,
before deciding to go back, and the North Americans
raised the same issue, but said it has been so long
they probably could handle it, the folks from the Asia
Pacific said it is much closer than going to Canada,
and the Europeans said it is worth it.

Louis said he is thrilled and plans to be there and
hopes to be there, but that the statistics might be
interesting to look at.

Jari Arkko agreed that looking at the statistics is
key. They did a questionnaire and got quite a bit of
data about who would attend Hawaii and Buenos Aires and
he called for basing the decisions on the responses
rather than what the IAOC/IESG think.

Randy Bush added that some locations some people
especially want to go to are going to cost a lot of
money and pain Ð but thatÕs life in the big city. He
told everyone not to worry because Hawaii doesnÕt have
trains.

Scott Brander added that his first meeting was veto-ed
by his management since it was going to be Ònerds in
paradise.Ó Hawaii is a lot closer for a lot of the
IETFF attendees. ItÕs much closer to Asia and he will
be going with his wife.

Sean Turner hates that the meetings are announced in
advance because then his wife calls to tell him which
meetings they are going to. About meetings that are
considered boondoggles, attendees just need to go and
do work there Ð post their drafts and get work done and
then move on.

Randy Bush noted that Hawaii does have two interstates.

Dave Misell asked again if a candidate for the NomCom
would be disadvantaged if they cannot get to the
meeting.

Scott Bradner reminded him that this was the question
Michael asked, and said it is up to the next NomCom to
answer that question in a positive way; i.e. no.

Randy Bush disagreed and was not sure why Scott said no
and what he meant by it. He said the IETF should do
something about trying to get the NomCom the technical
support to interview people and connect with them
remotely.

Jari Arkko agreed that the IETF will need to expect and
deal with more people attending remotely. They have
seen cases where even in working group meetings the
chair will be remote and the NomCom will have to deal
with that.

Allison Mankin reported that of 40 people interviewed,
about a quarter of the people were interviewed
remotely. They were very successful in using webRTC-
based tools to interview people. More support would be
nice, but not necessary.

Chris Griffiths called for closing questions.

Andrew Allen suggested posting reasons why a venue was
selected then attendees could point their management to
that as justification for the location being chosen.

X agreed that in general this would always be a good
idea no matter what, to have some justification posted
always.

Stewart Bryant agreed that it is always hard to justify
travel unless it is to a boring location.

Jari Arkko said Vancouver is the new Minneapolis.

Dave Misell, identified himself as the fish and chips
guy, welcomed the IETF back to London. He announced
that Polycom is a world leader in sound. He is the
treasurer for BCS British Computer Society, and he is
tasked with maintaining open sourced ÒstuffÓ. Phillip
Halam Bakker, who wrote the document defining the prism
class of attacks, did that dynamically a couple of days
after a meeting. Dave encouraged the IETF to consider
Òpresence-typeÓ things that Polycom and others offer,
and encouraged that more suites and things be available
routinely. He would be willing to pay for it so his
members could participate.

Adrian Farrell told Russ that the European members did
not say it was a great idea to go to Hawaii, but that
they would be willing to go for it if it is actually
that close to Asia.

Ted Lemon said that it is hard to poll members of the
IETF about attending the IETF, because of course they
will go to IETF. The question needs to be phrased
better. Hawaii isnÕt a location that is preferred, but
one that they would still attend.

Bob Hinden expressed disagreement. He said there are
numerous alternate hotels and restaurants within
walking distance.

Ted Lemon said he is aware of the hotels that are
reasonably close but wants restaurants walking
distances like London.

Bob Hinden thought he would be surprised; there are
tons of places nearby the hotel.

Ted Lemon assumed Google maps doesnÕt lay all of that
out.

Bob Hinden did a personal site visit so he looked
around a bit. He also said it might be cheaper to fly
because of all of the competition flying there.

Ted Lemon was not worried about difficulty about
getting there or the airplane flight. He thinks if a
manager can budget Minneapolis, they can budget Hawaii.
He will take BobÕs word for the variety of food options
within walking distance; itÕs just something he worries
about.

Jari responded that they are careful about measuring
the data.

Scott Brim has been to some meetings in OÕahu, and he
feels much more productive in a space that is nice than
in a small room that is dark and it is cold outside. He
gets more done in Hawaii than anywhere else. The best
pizza he has ever had is from a truck that parks in the
middle of Waikiki and itÕs Cecilian.

Thomas Narten said there is a sizable fan club for
Minneapolis (applause from the audience) and he wanted
to reconsider Minneapolis, he doesnÕt think it should
be taken off the table.

Wes Hardaker agreed that the decision needs to be made
based on the budget and how much a location will cost.



9. IESG Open Mic

Dot exchange.

Brian Haberman, Ted Lemon, Alia Atlas, Stewart Bryant,
Adrian Farrel, Russ Housley, Pete Resnick, Gonzalo
Camarillo, Alissa Cooper, Jari Arkko, Barry Leiba, Sean
Turner, Kathleen Moriarty, Stephen Farrell, Richard
Barnes, Spencer Dawkins, Martin Stiemerling, Benoit
Claise, Joel Jaeggli

Dots were exchanged.

Olaf Kolkman thought it might be good to create a
repository for people to deposit their slides for
people who speak about the IETF so people who have to
speak about the IETF have a good place to reference
information said in the past.

Richard Barnes agreed but didnÕt think it needed to be
top-down organized like that. He thinks anyone could
just create a drop box and pass the link around.

Dave Crocker said he is a bully. It has been 375 days
since he hasno called someone a mean name.

All: Hi Dave!

Dave Crocker was glad to get a response. He would
classify himself as a recovering bully, and he was not
the only one in the room. He posted a draft this
morning and he encouraged everyone to look at it. The
culture of the IETF encourages, doesnÕt just tolerate,
intimidating behavior that varies between harassment
and bullying and the IETF really aught to stop that.
They tend to tell people the person behaving that way
doesnÕt have any choice, theyÕre just like that, and
the person complaining should just toughen up. The
reality is bullying is context-dependent. People react
to the environment they are in. A bully here is
probably not a bully in Japan, for example. The styles
people use for bullying is really quite creative. The
in-your face style is easy. WhatÕs more interesting is
the disingenuous style, such as scrolling the screen.
IETFers like the idea of the disingenuous kind such as
the person who is actually doing the bullying claiming
to be the victim or targeting the victim and claiming
theyÕre the one doing the harassing. They also enjoy
telling people on the mailing list and telling them
theyÕre trolls. All of this is abusive personal
behavior. Everyone is there to do real work. ThatÕs
substance. The way to get substance done is to focus on
the substance. The way not to get substance done is to
focus on the personal. The draft that he posted has got
the two phrases diversity and professional conduct on
them and ending the abusive personal behavior IETF has
in their community is actually pretty easy, all they
have to do is decide to do it and make sure the IETF
management at every level calls it out forcefully. If
they have an environment that wont tolerate it, it wont
happen.

Jari Arkko fully agreed. He thought they have wonderful
discussions but also agreed that there are occasions
when things could have gone better. The management
needs to make it clear what is allowed and what is not.
Some examples: there are a reasonable amount of
discussions happening on ietf at ietf.org list and the
wg lists. It is hard to call it out immediately because
of when it is seen, but it is important to react
immediately.

Dave Crocker reminded everyone that bullies are not
just people who have bad moments. Bulling is an
explicit attempt to bully someone into silence. Bullies
have patterns and are not people you can negotiate
with. The only way this will change is if it is a group
change, it canÕt just be a change with one person Ð
specifically the IETF chair cannot be the only person
monitoring the IETF list and hope that this fixes the
problem.

Barry Leiba apologized for not reading the draft but
agreed that when people come in and see abusive
behaviors, newbies do not come in and want to
participate. Jari says what is allowed and what is not
allowed, but it should be more focused on what is
socially acceptable and what is not.

Pete Resnick said they do need to decide this as a
community. If they see this behavior, it would not help
if everyone just jumped in and yelled at them even
louder. They have a sergeant at arms and they have
chairs and ADs and doing it offline and asking them to
stop if they are having a bad day or cutting them off
if theyÕre a bully would be the better solution.

Murry Kutcherawy added that a newbie who might see
people bullying each other when they join may see that
as the way to succeed in the IETF and will come in with
guns blazing and no one will want to listen.

Ted Lemon wants to be sure to find all behaviors that
are bullying, even those that are subtler. People who
keep posting the same post over and over again are also
bullying. He doesnÕt want to get rid of part of an
existing feedback loop and not all of it.

Scott Bradner said that he was warned that someone who
might have attended the newcomersÕ tutorial might give
a hard time about how unwelcome the newcomers feel in a
bullying environment and he had to specifically warn
about it and he was disappointed that he has to do
that.

Cullen Jennings asked Gonzalo to pronounce the area
thatÕs R-A-I.

Richard Barnes interjected with ÒRAY.Ó

Gonzalo said he got a tutorial. ItÕs the same like Rye
whiskey.

Ted Hardey thanked the IESG for its quick response time
in creating TRAM and DART. It was so important to not
have two cycles of BoF.

Jari agreed that they donÕt need multiple cycles if the
topic is so clear.

Richard Barnes gave a warning that the charter for DART
would be on the next telechat.

Spencer Dawkins as responsible AD, said that TRAM
formed well because they knew what they wanted to do.
They had a list and they were coherent. Russ Housley
requested simply putting the charter out for review,
and they are chartered. Showing up coherently with a
plan really works.

Keith Moore went back to talk about bullying. He said
there are many different kinds of bullying. One way is
by personal intimidation (which is very obvious), but
also throwing your companyÕs weight around and your
position around. Getting lots of people to gain up
against a person even when their ideas have sound
technical merit. He wants the discussions at IETF to be
about substance, not about personality, where a person
is from, their ethnicity, their gender, all those
things. When they craft rules about bullying, they need
to preserve our reputation of protecting ideas that we
work for technical excellence.

David Black said that as one of the folks involved in
inventing DART, they invented on Sunday afternoon,
dispatched a couple days later, had a solid charter,
and intend to move quickly.

Richard Barnes added that they are hoping to have a
document on the telechat right after last call is
approved.

Jari joked that they should put it on the same one;
that he thinks they should move faster.

Barry Leiba said they have a big gap before the first
one so they can get some work done there.

Pete Resnick added that the RAI guys were trying to
catch up with the APP guys.

Richard said someone suggested they might have to bash
the IESG agenda so the charter approval comes before
the document approval.

Jonathan Lennox complained that the repitity of TRAM
broke the WG conflict algorithm. He wanted to go to it
but there was another group he had to go to at the same
time (but it did not exist at the time of conflict
requests).

Barry Leiba said that his AD is responsible for that.

Gonzalo Camarillo said he was the AD and he is chairing
TRAM so he was fully aware of the problems. It was just
a matter of scheduling, they were hard to schedule not
that he forgot about that.

Barry Leiba agreed that this IETF meeting was
particularly tough to schedule. They had every slot
filled and had a lot of trouble deconflicting things.

Jonathan Lennox added that the other thing he was going
to say is that is the BoF scheduling problem. Some of
the BoFs have awareness but a lot do not until they are
working groups. The challenge with TRAM was they had
one hour to talk about a charter and they showed up and
actually had to do work. He understands there are bumps
in the road when moving that quickly.

Jari adds that his perception is that in the last few
years the IETF has added quite a few working groups but
the IETF cannot continue to grow without closing old
working groups or lengthening the size of the week. The
IETF might have to dismiss some working groups that are
not doing the most relevant work any more.

Dave Missell said that at the social he talked to a
Chinese man who does up to 10 drafts here in his spare
time. His company pays him to be here but his time is
his own. He encouraged everyone to say one word when
they see these fellows out there which is ÒG?nb?iÓ
which means cheers.